10. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Warranties and Indemnification

The Company’s commercial services are typically warranted to perform in a manner consistent with general industry standards that are reasonably applicable and materially in accordance with the Company’s documentation under normal use and circumstances.

The Company’s arrangements generally include certain provisions for indemnifying customers against liabilities if its products or services infringe third-party intellectual property rights. To date, the Company has not incurred any material costs as a result of such obligations and has not accrued any liabilities related to such obligations in the accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements.

Stockholder Lawsuit

In May 2022, a securities class action complaint captioned Leacock v. IonQ, Inc. et al., Case No. 8:22-cv-01306, was filed by a stockholder of the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland (the “Leacock Litigation”) against the Company and certain of the Company’s current officers. In June 2022, a securities class action complaint captioned Fisher v. IonQ, Inc., Case No. 8:22-cv-01306-DLB (the “Fisher Litigation”) was filed by a stockholder against the Company and certain of the Company’s current officers (“IonQ Defendants”). Both the Leacock Litigation and Fisher Litigation, which have been consolidated into a single action, allege violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and seek damages. In September 2022, the Court appointed lead plaintiffs and counsel for lead plaintiffs, and ordered lead plaintiffs to file a consolidated amended complaint. The consolidated amended complaint was filed on November 22, 2022. As part of the consolidated amended complaint, certain members of the Company’s board of directors as well as other dMY-related defendants (“Additional Defendants”) have been added as defendants to the case. On February 7, 2023, the IonQ Defendants and the Additional Defendants each filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. On March 23, 2023, lead plaintiffs filed their omnibus opposition to the motions to dismiss. On April 26, 2023, the IonQ Defendants and the Additional Defendants each filed a reply in support of the motions to dismiss. On September 28, 2023, the District Court of Maryland issued an order dismissing plaintiffs' claims against the IonQ Defendants and the Additional Defendants with prejudice and directed the clerk to close the case. On October 26, 2023, the plaintiffs filed a motion for post-judgment relief, seeking to amend their consolidated amended complaint. The IonQ Defendants and Additional Defendants filed oppositions to plaintiffs’ motion on December 1, 2023, and plaintiffs filed their reply on January 8, 2024. On July 10, 2024, the plaintiffs' motion for post-judgment relief was denied and the District Court of Maryland directed the clerk to close the case. On July 26, 2024, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals seeking to review the trial court's decision. Plaintiffs filed their Opening Brief in the Fourth Circuit on September 9, 2024. A response brief by IonQ Defendants was filed on October 8, 2024 and plaintiffs’ reply brief was filed on October 29, 2024. Oral argument in the Fourth Circuit occurred on January 31, 2025. On April 8, 2025, the Fourth Circuit held for the IonQ Defendants in a published opinion. As of July 7, 2025, the deadline for plaintiffs to file an appeal with the United States Supreme Court lapsed, and there are no other avenues for plaintiffs to appeal, which means that the Fourth Circuit’s decision upholding the trial court's dismissal with prejudice stands. This case is now considered closed.