Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2025
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Legal Proceedings. In the ordinary course of business, the Company is subject to proceedings, lawsuits, governmental investigations, claims and other matters, including those that relate to the environment, health and safety, employee benefits, export compliance, intellectual property, tax matters and other regulatory compliance and general matters, including for Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and shareholder matters. It is not currently a party to any litigation, nor is it aware of any pending or threatened litigation against it that the Company believes would materially affect its business, operating results, financial condition or cash flows, other than the following. On June 19, 2018, the Company and certain of its subsidiaries filed a lawsuit (the "TD-SAP 1" suit) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against SAP SE, SAP America, Inc., and SAP Labs, LLC (collectively, "SAP"). In the TD-SAP 1 lawsuit, the Company alleged, among other things, that SAP misappropriated certain of the Company’s trade secrets within the Company’s enterprise data analytics and warehousing products and used such trade secrets to help develop, improve, introduce, and sell one or more competing products. The Company further alleged that SAP employed anticompetitive practices using its substantial market position in the enterprise resource planning applications market to pressure the Company’s customers and prospective customers to use one or more of SAP's competing products and reduce or eliminate customers' and prospective customers' use of the Company's offerings. The Company sought an injunction barring SAP’s alleged conduct, monetary damages, and other available legal and equitable relief. In July 2019, SAP filed patent infringement counterclaims against the Company based on five of SAP’s U.S. patents. On August 31, 2020, the Company filed a second lawsuit against SAP (the "TD-SAP 2" suit) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, in which the Company alleged infringement by SAP of four of the Company's U.S. patents. On February 16, 2021, SAP filed additional patent infringement counterclaims against the Company in response. On the same day, SAP also filed a lawsuit in Germany (the "TD-SAP 3" suit) for infringement of a single German patent. In November 2021, the district court dismissed the Company’s antitrust claims and most of its trade secret claims in the TD-SAP 1 suit. In December 2021, the Company appealed that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C. That Court ruled the appeal should be decided by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and transferred the appeal to the Ninth Circuit, where a three-judge panel heard oral arguments on February 12, 2024. Soon after, the Company and SAP entered into a partial settlement agreement that resulted in full dismissal of all claims and counterclaims in the TD-SAP 2 suit in California and the TD-SAP 3 suit in Germany, as well as a stay of all claims and counterclaims remaining in the TD-SAP 1 suit pending resolution of the Company’s appeal. On December 19, 2024, the Ninth Circuit panel ruled in the Company’s favor, overturning the district court’s summary judgment decision with respect both to the antitrust claims and the trade secret claims, and remanding to the district court for further proceedings. On January 23, 2025, SAP petitioned the Ninth Circuit for rehearing en banc. The Ninth Circuit denied SAP’s rehearing petition on March 4, 2025, and issued its mandate returning the case to the district court on April 1, 2025. On June 2, 2025, SAP petitioned for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court challenging the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning on applicability of the per se rule to the Company’s antitrust claim. SAP moved both the Ninth Circuit and the district court to stay proceedings pending the Supreme Court’s ruling on the writ of certiorari petition; both motions were denied and the district court scheduled trial to begin on April 13, 2026. Currently, it is not possible to determine the likelihood of a loss or a reasonably estimated range of loss, if any, pertaining to any of SAP’s remaining patent counterclaims in the TD-SAP 1 lawsuit. On June 14, 2024, a putative securities class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and certain of its officers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California (the "Court"), captioned Ostrander v. Teradata Corporation, No. 24-cv-01034 (S.D. Cal.). The complaint asserts claims for alleged violations of federal securities laws related to statements concerning the Company’s business and 2023 financial outlook for Total ARR and Public Cloud ARR. The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of certain persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company’s stock during the period from February 13, 2023 to February 12, 2024 and seeks unspecified damages and other relief. On December 6, 2024, the lead plaintiff in the case filed an amended complaint, after which the Company filed a motion to dismiss on February 4, 2025. Briefing on the motion is complete. The Company disputes the allegations in the amended complaint and intends to defend the case vigorously. The case is at an early stage, and the Company cannot reasonably estimate the amount of any potential financial loss or cost that could result from this lawsuit. On May 2, 2025, a Teradata shareholder filed a derivative lawsuit, purportedly on behalf of the Company, against the current members of the Company’s Board of Directors and former CFO, captioned Lipshutz v. McMillan, No. 25-cv-1121 (S.D. Cal.). The complaint is based primarily on the same set of allegations in the Ostrander securities class action lawsuit, and asserts claims for violations of the securities laws based on allegedly misleading proxy statements, and claims for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment, among other claims. The case is at an early stage, and the Company cannot reasonably estimate the amount of any potential financial loss or cost that could result from this lawsuit. Other Contingencies. The Company provides its customers with certain indemnification rights. In general, the Company agrees to indemnify the customer if a third party asserts patent or other infringement on the part of the customer for its use of the Company’s offerings. The Company has indemnification obligations under its charter and bylaws to its officers and directors, and has entered into indemnification agreements with the officers and directors of its subsidiaries. From time to time, the Company also enters into agreements in connection with its acquisition and divestiture activities that include indemnification obligations by the Company. The fair value of these indemnification obligations is typically not readily determinable due to the conditional nature of the Company’s potential obligations and the specific facts and circumstances involved with each particular agreement. As such, the Company has generally not recorded a liability in connection with these indemnification arrangements. Historically, payments made by the Company under these types of agreements have not had a material effect on the Company’s consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. Concentrations of Risk. The Company is potentially subject to concentrations of credit risk on accounts receivable and financial instruments such as hedging instruments, and cash and cash equivalents. Credit risk includes the risk of nonperformance by counterparties. The maximum potential loss may exceed the amount recognized on the balance sheet. Exposure to credit risk is managed through credit approvals, credit limits, selecting major international financial institutions (as counterparties to hedging transactions) and monitoring procedures. Teradata’s business often involves large transactions with customers, and if one or more of those customers were to default in its obligations under applicable contractual arrangements, the Company could be exposed to potentially significant losses. However, management believes that the reserves for potential losses were adequate at June 30, 2025 and December 31, 2024. The Company is also potentially subject to concentrations of supplier risk. Our hardware components are assembled primarily by Flex Ltd. ("Flex"). Flex procures a wide variety of components used in the manufacturing process on behalf of the Company. Although many of these components are available from multiple sources, Teradata utilizes preferred supplier relationships to provide more consistent and optimal quality, cost and delivery. Typically, these preferred suppliers maintain alternative processes and/or facilities to ensure continuity of supply. Given the Company’s strategy to outsource its manufacturing activities to Flex and to source certain components from single suppliers, a disruption in production at Flex or at a supplier could impact the timing of customer shipments and/or Teradata’s operating results. In addition, a significant change in the forecasts to any of these preferred suppliers could result in purchase obligations for components that may be in excess of demand.

Commitments and Contingencies

Legal Proceedings. In the ordinary course of business, the Company is subject to proceedings, lawsuits, governmental investigations, claims and other matters, including those that relate to the environment, health and safety, employee benefits, export compliance, intellectual property, tax matters and other regulatory compliance and general matters, including for Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and shareholder matters. It is not currently a party to any litigation, nor is it aware of any pending or threatened litigation against it that the Company believes would materially affect its business, operating results, financial condition or cash flows, other than the following.

On June 19, 2018, the Company and certain of its subsidiaries filed a lawsuit (the "TD-SAP 1" suit) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against SAP SE, SAP America, Inc., and SAP Labs, LLC (collectively, "SAP"). In the TD-SAP 1 lawsuit, the Company alleged, among other things, that SAP misappropriated certain of the Company’s trade secrets within the Company’s enterprise data analytics and warehousing products and used such trade secrets to help develop, improve, introduce, and sell one or more competing products. The Company further alleged that SAP employed anticompetitive practices using its substantial market position in the enterprise resource planning applications market to pressure the Company’s customers and prospective customers to use one or more of SAP's competing products and reduce or eliminate customers' and prospective customers' use of the Company's offerings. The Company sought an injunction barring SAP’s alleged conduct, monetary damages, and other available legal and equitable relief. In July 2019, SAP filed patent infringement counterclaims against the Company based on five of SAP’s U.S. patents. On August 31, 2020, the Company filed a second lawsuit against SAP (the "TD-SAP 2" suit) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, in which the Company alleged infringement by SAP of four of the Company's U.S. patents. On February 16, 2021, SAP filed additional patent infringement counterclaims against the Company in response. On the same day, SAP also filed a lawsuit in Germany (the "TD-SAP 3" suit) for infringement of a single German patent. In November 2021, the district court dismissed the Company’s antitrust claims and most of its trade secret claims in the TD-SAP 1 suit. In December 2021, the Company appealed that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C. That Court ruled the appeal should be decided by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and transferred the appeal to the Ninth Circuit, where a three-judge panel heard oral arguments on February 12, 2024. Soon after, the Company and SAP entered into a partial settlement agreement that resulted in full dismissal of all claims and counterclaims in the TD-SAP 2 suit in California and the TD-SAP 3 suit in Germany, as well as a stay of all claims and counterclaims remaining in the TD-SAP 1 suit pending resolution of the Company’s appeal. On December 19, 2024, the Ninth Circuit panel ruled in the Company’s favor, overturning the district court’s summary judgment decision with respect both to the antitrust claims and the trade secret claims, and remanding to the district court for further proceedings. On January 23, 2025, SAP petitioned the Ninth Circuit for rehearing en banc. The Ninth Circuit denied SAP’s rehearing petition on March 4, 2025, and issued its mandate returning the case to the district court on April 1, 2025. On June 2, 2025, SAP petitioned for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court challenging the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning on applicability of the per se rule to the Company’s antitrust claim. SAP moved both the Ninth Circuit and the district court to stay proceedings pending the Supreme Court’s ruling on the writ of certiorari petition; both motions were denied and the district court scheduled trial to begin on April 13, 2026. Currently, it is not possible to determine the likelihood of a loss or a reasonably estimated range of loss, if any, pertaining to any of SAP’s remaining patent counterclaims in the TD-SAP 1 lawsuit.

On June 14, 2024, a putative securities class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and certain of its officers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California (the "Court"), captioned Ostrander v. Teradata Corporation, No. 24-cv-01034 (S.D. Cal.). The complaint asserts claims for alleged violations of federal securities laws related to statements concerning the Company’s business and 2023 financial outlook for Total ARR and Public Cloud ARR. The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of certain persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company’s stock during the period from February 13, 2023 to February 12, 2024 and seeks unspecified damages and other relief. On December 6, 2024, the lead plaintiff in the case filed an amended complaint, after which the Company filed a motion to dismiss on February 4, 2025. Briefing on the motion is complete. The Company disputes the allegations in the amended complaint and intends to defend the case vigorously. The case is at an early stage, and the Company cannot reasonably estimate the amount of any potential financial loss or cost that could result from this lawsuit.

On May 2, 2025, a Teradata shareholder filed a derivative lawsuit, purportedly on behalf of the Company, against the current members of the Company’s Board of Directors and former CFO, captioned Lipshutz v. McMillan, No. 25-cv-1121 (S.D. Cal.). The complaint is based primarily on the same set of allegations in the Ostrander securities class action lawsuit, and asserts claims for violations of the securities laws based on allegedly misleading proxy statements, and claims for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment, among other claims. The case is at an early stage, and the Company cannot reasonably estimate the amount of any potential financial loss or cost that could result from this lawsuit.

Other Contingencies. The Company provides its customers with certain indemnification rights. In general, the Company agrees to indemnify the customer if a third party asserts patent or other infringement on the part of the customer for its use of the Company’s offerings. The Company has indemnification obligations under its charter and bylaws to its officers and directors, and has entered into indemnification agreements with the officers and directors

of its subsidiaries. From time to time, the Company also enters into agreements in connection with its acquisition and divestiture activities that include indemnification obligations by the Company. The fair value of these indemnification obligations is typically not readily determinable due to the conditional nature of the Company’s potential obligations and the specific facts and circumstances involved with each particular agreement.

As such, the Company has generally not recorded a liability in connection with these indemnification arrangements. Historically, payments made by the Company under these types of agreements have not had a material effect on the Company’s consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

Concentrations of Risk. The Company is potentially subject to concentrations of credit risk on accounts receivable and financial instruments such as hedging instruments, and cash and cash equivalents. Credit risk includes the risk of nonperformance by counterparties. The maximum potential loss may exceed the amount recognized on the balance sheet. Exposure to credit risk is managed through credit approvals, credit limits, selecting major international financial institutions (as counterparties to hedging transactions) and monitoring procedures. Teradata’s business often involves large transactions with customers, and if one or more of those customers were to default in its obligations under applicable contractual arrangements, the Company could be exposed to potentially significant losses. However, management believes that the reserves for potential losses were adequate at June 30, 2025 and December 31, 2024.

The Company is also potentially subject to concentrations of supplier risk. Our hardware components are assembled primarily by Flex Ltd. ("Flex"). Flex procures a wide variety of components used in the manufacturing process on behalf of the Company. Although many of these components are available from multiple sources, Teradata utilizes preferred supplier relationships to provide more consistent and optimal quality, cost and delivery. Typically, these preferred suppliers maintain alternative processes and/or facilities to ensure continuity of supply. Given the Company’s strategy to outsource its manufacturing activities to Flex and to source certain components from single suppliers, a disruption in production at Flex or at a supplier could impact the timing of customer shipments and/or Teradata’s operating results. In addition, a significant change in the forecasts to any of these preferred suppliers could result in purchase obligations for components that may be in excess of demand.