COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2025
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES On November 23, 2021, the Company, its directors and certain of its officers were named in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Bar-Asher v. Playtika Holding Corp. et al.). The complaint is allegedly brought on behalf of a class of purchasers of the Company’s securities between January 15, 2021 and November 2, 2021, and alleges violations of federal securities laws arising out of alleged misstatements or omissions by the defendants during the alleged class period. On March 10, 2022, the court appointed LBMotion Ltd as lead plaintiff, and the plaintiff filed an amended complaint on May 6, 2022. The amended complaint alleges violations of Section 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and seeks, among other things, damages and attorneys’ fees and costs on behalf of the putative class. The amended complaint also added the companies that served as underwriters for the Company’s IPO as defendants in the lawsuit. On September 15, 2022, in accordance with local rules of the Court, the Company and other defendants in the case filed a letter notifying the Court of defendants’ service upon plaintiffs of, among other things, a notice of motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ amended complaint and a memorandum of law in support of the defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ amended complaint. On November 30, 2022, the Company filed with the Court a motion to dismiss. The Company’s motion to dismiss was granted with prejudice on March 18, 2024. However, on April 15, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. The plaintiffs’ appeal has been briefed and is currently pending. As the Company is awaiting a ruling on the appeals process, the Company cannot estimate what impact, if any, the litigation may have on its results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. The Company has defended this case vigorously and will continue to do so. On November 4, 2022, the Company and certain of its directors were named in a derivative action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Bushansky v. Antokol., et al.). The complaint was brought on behalf of the Company by a putative stockholder alleging that the named directors were negligent in their oversight of the preparation of the Company’s Proxy Statement in alleged violation of federal securities laws and that those directors breached their fiduciary duties upon related allegations. The complaint also asserts claims for contribution and indemnification, and aiding and abetting. The complaint seeks, among other things, damages, disgorgement and restitution by the director defendants, and attorneys’ fees and costs. Based upon an agreement of plaintiff, the Company, and the other defendants, on February 13, 2023, the Court stayed this action until the resolution of the motion to dismiss in the class action case of Bar-Asher v. Playtika Holding Corp. When the motion to dismiss in the class action case of Bar-Asher v. Playtika Holding Corp. was granted as discussed above, this action was administratively closed. The Company does not expect this action to move forward until after the appeal of the class action case of Bar-Asher v. Playtika Holding Corp. has been decided. As this stage, the Company cannot estimate what impact, if any, the litigation may have on its results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. The Company intends to vigorously defend this case. On May 17, 2022, Guy David Ben Yosef filed a Motion for Approval of a class action lawsuit in district court in Tel Aviv-he Jaffa Israel against Playtika Group Israel Ltd. (“PGI”), on behalf of all of PGI’s customers who made game token purchases in Israel as part of games marketed by PGI during the seven years preceding the filing of the motion and for all subsequent customers of such games who purchase tokens until the resolution of the claim. The Motion alleged that certain of the Company’s slot, poker and solitaire-themed games, including Slotomania, Caesars Slots, Solitaire Grand Harvest, House of Fun and Poker Heat, constitute illegal gambling and are prohibited under Israeli law and are misleading under Israeli consumer protection laws and alleges unjust enrichment. The Motion asserted damages of NIS 50 million. This matter was resolved pursuant to a settlement agreement that was approved by the Court on April 23, 2025. The financial impact of the settlement was not material to the Company’s financial statements as a whole. On April 10, 2023, Playtika Holding UK II Limited, the Company’s controlling shareholder, and certain officers of the Company were sued (Kormos v Playtika Holding UK II Limited, et al.) in the Delaware Chancery Court. The lawsuit alleges generally that the defendants breached fiduciary duties owed to the Company and its stockholders with respect to the controlling shareholder’s indication of an interest in selling some or all of its shares, and the resulting strategic review process and self-tender offer. On August 18, 2023, defendants filed with the Court motions to dismiss the claims. A hearing on the motions to dismiss was held on November 21, 2023. On January 18, 2024, the court denied Playtika Holding UK II Limited’s motion to dismiss in an oral ruling. The court issued a written opinion on May 3, 2024 granting the motion to dismiss of the claims against the Company’s officers. At this stage, the Company cannot estimate what impact, if any, the litigation may have on its results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. On June 7, 2024, the Company received a demand letter from counsel for Scott G. Kormos, one of the plaintiffs in the Kormos v Playtika Holding UK II Limited, et al. matter described above, pursuant to Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law (“DGCL”), seeking disclosure of certain of the Company’s books and records, particularly relating to the share repurchase program the Company announced in May 2024. The Company has responded to the demand, stating its belief that the demand letter fails to fully comply with the requirements of Section 220 of the DGCL. However, in the interest of resolution and while preserving all rights, the Company made a small production of documents in response to the demand. On December 12, 2024, the Company received a demand letter from counsel for Scott G. Kormos, one of the plaintiffs in the Kormos v Playtika Holding UK II Limited, et al. matter described above, pursuant to Section 220 of the DGCL, seeking disclosure of certain of the Company’s books and records, particularly relating to the pledge of the Company’s common stock by Playtika Holding UK II Limited. The Company has responded to the demand, stating its belief that the demand letter fails to fully comply with the requirements of Section 220 of the DGCL. However, in the interest of resolution and while preserving all rights, the Company made a small production of documents in response to the demand. On November 13, 2023, plaintiff Gina v. Burt filed a lawsuit against the Company and its subsidiary, Playtika Ltd., in the Circuit Court of Coffee County, Tennessee, alleging that the Company’s social casino-themed games are unlawful gambling under Tennessee law. The lawsuit seeks to recover all amounts paid by Tennessee residents to the Company in connection with its games during the period beginning one year before the filing of the lawsuit until the case is resolved but excluding any residents who spent $75,000 or more during such time period. The case has been stayed until August 29, 2025, at plaintiff’s request to allow plaintiff to amend the complaint. As the case is in preliminary stages, the Company cannot estimate what impact, if any, the litigation may have on its results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. The Company intends to defend this case vigorously. On March 8, 2023, plaintiff Gayla Hamilton Mills filed a lawsuit against the Company and its subsidiary, Playtika Ltd., in the Circuit Court of Franklin County, Alabama, alleging that the Company’s casino-themed social games are unlawful gambling under Alabama law. The lawsuit seeks to recover all amounts paid by Alabama residents to the Company in connection with its games during the period beginning one year before the filing of the lawsuit until the case is resolved. After the Company removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, plaintiff dismissed the complaint and filed a very similar new complaint in the Circuit Court of Franklin County, Alabama on August 25, 2023. The new complaint asserted the same cause of action and bases for relief, but limited the requested recovery to the amounts paid to the Company in connection with its games only by those Alabama residents who spent less than $75,000 during the one year before the filing of the lawsuit until the case is resolved. As the case is in preliminary stages, the Company cannot estimate what impact, if any, the litigation may have on its results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. The Company intends to defend this case vigorously. On August 22, 2024, plaintiff Dianne Fuqua filed a lawsuit against the Company and its subsidiary, Playtika Ltd., in the District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, alleging that the Company’s casino-themed social games are unlawful gambling under Kentucky law. The lawsuit seeks to recover three times the amount paid by Kentucky residents to the Company from its games during the period from August 2019 through June 2023 plus interest, costs and any other relief plaintiff is entitled to. The Company filed a motion to compel arbitration on July 11, 2025. Plaintiff filed an opposition to the renewed motion on July 25, 2025 and the Company is entitled to file a reply on or before August 8, 2025. As the case is in preliminary stages, the Company cannot estimate what impact, if any, the litigation may have on its results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. The Company intends to defend this case vigorously. On April 24, 2025, plaintiff Debbie Duncan filed a putative class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington against Playtika Ltd. The suit is purportedly brought on behalf of both Washington-specific and nationwide classes of persons who purchased virtual coins in the Slotomania game during the relevant limitations period. The complaint alleges that Slotomania violates Washington law and that Playtika Ltd. has engaged in unlawful and deceptive practices more generally with respect to Slotomania. Playtika Ltd.’s response to the complaint is due August 21, 2025. As the case is in preliminary stages, the Company cannot estimate what impact, if any, the litigation may have on its results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. The Company intends to defend this case vigorously. On June 6, 2025, plaintiff Stuart Mills filed a putative class action lawsuit against the Company and its subsidiary, Playtika Ltd., on behalf of all Alabama-based players of the Company’s games in the Circuit Court of Franklin County, Alabama. The suit, like the suit brought by Gayla Hamilton Mills, alleges that the Company’s casino-themed social games are unlawful gambling under Alabama law. The lawsuit seeks to recover all amounts paid by Alabama residents to the Company in connection with its games during the period beginning one year before the filing of the lawsuit until the case is resolved. The suit was filed by the same counsel who represent Gayla Hamilton Mills. The Company removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama on July 11, 2025. Plaintiff’s motion to remand to state court, if any, is due August 11, 2025. If no motion to remand is filed, the Company’s responsive pleading to the complaint will be due on September 25, 2025. As the case is in preliminary stages, the Company cannot estimate what impact, if any, the litigation may have on its results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. On June 24, 2025, we received a letter from the Attorney General of the State of Washington alleging that certain of our games violate state gambling and consumer protection laws, and requesting that we pay certain monetary penalties and prevent those games from being available to play in the state in the future. No litigation has been filed in respect of these allegations. While we disagree with the Attorney General’s allegations, and we intend to vigorously defend the matter, at this time, we are unable to reasonably estimate the potential loss or range of losses we may incur from this matter. On February 27, 2023, the company received a deficit notice from the Ben Gurion Airport Customs House concerning the purchase of a private aircraft. The deficit notice claims that the company's acquisition of the aircraft is an import into Israel, and, as a result, it was obliged to pay purchase tax and VAT for the acquisition. The company disputes that any tax or VAT is owed. On July 26, 2023, the Customs House's definitive response was received, with the deficit notice still intact. The current claimed amount of the deficit notice is approximately $3.6 million. The Company paid the deficit notice under protest and filed a claim with the district court on December 12, 2023. The Customs House submitted its statement of defense on April 17, 2024 and the Company submitted its response to the statement of defense on June 16, 2024. A pre-trial hearing which was scheduled for June 17, 2025 has been postponed as the parties have been engaged in settlement discussions. The Company intends to pursue this case vigorously. On June 1, 2024, the Company received pre-arbitration notices from a law firm purporting to represent 5,264 claimants who have played the Company’s games and intend to file arbitration demands alleging that the Company’s games are unlawful or that they otherwise have suffered harm for which recovery is available. On July 26, 2024, the law firm filed arbitration demands on behalf of 4,549 claimants. On September 13, 2024, the arbitral body requested that the Company waive certain dispute resolution provisions in the version of the terms of service invoked by claimants as a condition to its administering the arbitration. The Company declined to waive such provisions and, as a result, the arbitration was closed on October 3, 2024. On September 16, 2024, the Company received pre-arbitration notices from the same law firm purporting to represent an additional 2,560 claimants alleging the same claims as the other claimants. As of the date hereof, the Company lacks adequate information to assess the nature or validity of these claims. As such, the Company cannot estimate what impact, if any, these claims may have on its results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. The Company intends to defend these claims vigorously. On October 17, 2024, the Company received pre-arbitration notices from a different law firm purporting to represent 798 claimants who have played the Company’s games and intend to file arbitration demands alleging that the Company’s games are unlawful and that the claimants made purchases in the Company’s games which were the result of unfair and deceptive practices that violate consumer protection laws. On January 31, 2025, the affiliated law firms filed arbitration demands on behalf of approximately 1,500 claimants. Due to the dispute resolution provisions in the version of the Company’s terms of service invoked by claimants, the arbitral body declined to arbitrate the claims and the arbitration was closed on March 10, 2025. On March 23, 2025, the Company received pre-arbitration notices from the same law firm purporting to represent another 902 claimants. On April 15, 2025, the Company received notice that pre-arbitration notices for 194 claimants had been filed in error and were being withdrawn. On April 24, 2025, one of the affiliated law firms filed the putative class action on behalf of plaintiff Debbie Duncan described above. As these claims are in preliminary stages, the Company cannot estimate what impact, if any, they may have on its results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. The Company intends to defend these claims vigorously. On July 8, 2025, the Company received pre-arbitration notices from another law firm purporting to represent 3,860 claimants who have played the Company’s games and intend to file arbitration demands alleging that the Company’s social casino games violate state laws against gambling and that the games use false, deceptive and misleading practices. The notice demands the payment of the greater of $5,000 or the actual amount of in-game losses for the claimants, plus punitive and other damages and attorneys’ fees as well as the cessation of the alleged unlawful conduct. On August 5, 2025, we were notified that the law firm was continuing to solicit claimants and that they now represented 4,688 claimants. As of the date hereof, the Company lacks adequate information to assess the nature or validity of these claims. As such, the Company cannot estimate what impact, if any, these claims may have on its results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. The Company intends to defend these claims vigorously.

On November 23, 2021, the Company, its directors and certain of its officers were named in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Bar-Asher v. Playtika Holding Corp. et al.). The complaint is allegedly brought on behalf of a class of purchasers of the Company’s securities between January 15, 2021 and November 2, 2021, and alleges violations of federal securities laws arising out of alleged misstatements or omissions by the defendants during the alleged class period. On March 10, 2022, the court appointed LBMotion Ltd as lead plaintiff, and the plaintiff filed an amended complaint on May 6, 2022. The amended complaint alleges violations of Section 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and seeks, among other things, damages and attorneys’ fees and costs on behalf of the putative class. The amended complaint also added the companies that served as underwriters for the Company’s IPO as defendants in the lawsuit. On September 15, 2022, in accordance with local rules of the Court, the Company and other defendants in the case filed a letter notifying the Court of defendants’ service upon plaintiffs of, among other things, a notice of motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ amended complaint and a memorandum of law in support of the defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ amended complaint. On November 30, 2022, the Company filed with the Court a motion to dismiss. The Company’s motion to dismiss was granted with prejudice on March 18, 2024. However, on April 15, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. The plaintiffs’ appeal has been briefed and is currently pending. As the Company is awaiting a ruling on the appeals process, the Company cannot estimate what impact, if any, the litigation may have on its results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. The Company has defended this case vigorously and will continue to do so.

On November 4, 2022, the Company and certain of its directors were named in a derivative action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Bushansky v. Antokol., et al.). The complaint was brought on behalf of the Company by a putative stockholder alleging that the named directors were negligent in their oversight of the preparation of the Company’s Proxy Statement in alleged violation of federal securities laws and that those directors breached their fiduciary duties upon related allegations. The complaint also asserts claims for contribution and indemnification, and aiding and abetting. The complaint seeks, among other things, damages, disgorgement and restitution by the director defendants, and attorneys’ fees and costs. Based upon an agreement of plaintiff, the Company, and the other defendants, on February 13, 2023, the Court stayed this action until the resolution of the motion to dismiss in the class action case of Bar-Asher v. Playtika Holding Corp. When the motion to dismiss in the class action case of Bar-Asher v. Playtika Holding Corp. was granted as discussed above, this action was administratively closed. The Company does not expect this action to move forward until after the appeal of the class action case of Bar-Asher v. Playtika Holding Corp. has been decided. As this stage, the Company cannot estimate what impact, if any, the litigation may have on its results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. The Company intends to vigorously defend this case.

in Israel as part of games marketed by PGI during the seven years preceding the filing of the motion and for all subsequent customers of such games who purchase tokens until the resolution of the claim. The Motion alleged that certain of the Company’s slot, poker and solitaire-themed games, including Slotomania, Caesars Slots, Solitaire Grand Harvest, House of Fun and Poker Heat, constitute illegal gambling and are prohibited under Israeli law and are misleading under Israeli consumer protection laws and alleges unjust enrichment. The Motion asserted damages of NIS 50 million. This matter was resolved pursuant to a settlement agreement that was approved by the Court on April 23, 2025. The financial impact of the settlement was not material to the Company’s financial statements as a whole.

On April 10, 2023, Playtika Holding UK II Limited, the Company’s controlling shareholder, and certain officers of the Company were sued (Kormos v Playtika Holding UK II Limited, et al.) in the Delaware Chancery Court. The lawsuit alleges generally that the defendants breached fiduciary duties owed to the Company and its stockholders with respect to the controlling shareholder’s indication of an interest in selling some or all of its shares, and the resulting strategic review process and self-tender offer. On August 18, 2023, defendants filed with the Court motions to dismiss the claims. A hearing on the

motions to dismiss was held on November 21, 2023. On January 18, 2024, the court denied Playtika Holding UK II Limited’s motion to dismiss in an oral ruling. The court issued a written opinion on May 3, 2024 granting the motion to dismiss of the claims against the Company’s officers. At this stage, the Company cannot estimate what impact, if any, the litigation may have on its results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.

On June 7, 2024, the Company received a demand letter from counsel for Scott G. Kormos, one of the plaintiffs in the Kormos v Playtika Holding UK II Limited, et al. matter described above, pursuant to Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law (“DGCL”), seeking disclosure of certain of the Company’s books and records, particularly relating to the share repurchase program the Company announced in May 2024. The Company has responded to the demand, stating its belief that the demand letter fails to fully comply with the requirements of Section 220 of the DGCL. However, in the interest of resolution and while preserving all rights, the Company made a small production of documents in response to the demand.

On December 12, 2024, the Company received a demand letter from counsel for Scott G. Kormos, one of the plaintiffs in the Kormos v Playtika Holding UK II Limited, et al. matter described above, pursuant to Section 220 of the DGCL, seeking disclosure of certain of the Company’s books and records, particularly relating to the pledge of the Company’s common stock by Playtika Holding UK II Limited. The Company has responded to the demand, stating its belief that the demand letter fails to fully comply with the requirements of Section 220 of the DGCL. However, in the interest of resolution and while preserving all rights, the Company made a small production of documents in response to the demand.

On November 13, 2023, plaintiff Gina v. Burt filed a lawsuit against the Company and its subsidiary, Playtika Ltd., in the Circuit Court of Coffee County, Tennessee, alleging that the Company’s social casino-themed games are unlawful gambling under Tennessee law. The lawsuit seeks to recover all amounts paid by Tennessee residents to the Company in connection with its games during the period beginning one year before the filing of the lawsuit until the case is resolved but excluding any residents who spent $75,000 or more during such time period. The case has been stayed until August 29, 2025, at plaintiff’s request to allow plaintiff to amend the complaint. As the case is in preliminary stages, the Company cannot estimate what impact, if any, the litigation may have on its results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. The Company intends to defend this case vigorously.

On March 8, 2023, plaintiff Gayla Hamilton Mills filed a lawsuit against the Company and its subsidiary, Playtika Ltd., in the Circuit Court of Franklin County, Alabama, alleging that the Company’s casino-themed social games are unlawful gambling under Alabama law. The lawsuit seeks to recover all amounts paid by Alabama residents to the Company in connection with its games during the period beginning one year before the filing of the lawsuit until the case is resolved. After the Company removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, plaintiff dismissed the complaint and filed a very similar new complaint in the Circuit Court of Franklin County, Alabama on August 25, 2023. The new complaint asserted the same cause of action and bases for relief, but limited the requested recovery to the amounts paid to the Company in connection with its games only by those Alabama residents who spent less than $75,000 during the one year before the filing of the lawsuit until the case is resolved. As the case is in preliminary stages, the Company cannot estimate what impact, if any, the litigation may have on its results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. The Company intends to defend this case vigorously.

On August 22, 2024, plaintiff Dianne Fuqua filed a lawsuit against the Company and its subsidiary, Playtika Ltd., in the District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, alleging that the Company’s casino-themed social games are unlawful gambling under Kentucky law. The lawsuit seeks to recover three times the amount paid by Kentucky residents to the Company from its games during the period from August 2019 through June 2023 plus interest, costs and any other relief plaintiff is entitled to. The Company filed a motion to compel arbitration on July 11, 2025. Plaintiff filed an opposition to the renewed motion on July 25, 2025 and the Company is entitled to file a reply on or before August 8, 2025. As the case is in preliminary stages, the Company cannot estimate what impact, if any, the litigation may have on its results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. The Company intends to defend this case vigorously.

On April 24, 2025, plaintiff Debbie Duncan filed a putative class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington against Playtika Ltd. The suit is purportedly brought on behalf of both Washington-specific and nationwide classes of persons who purchased virtual coins in the Slotomania game during the relevant limitations period. The complaint alleges that Slotomania violates Washington law and that Playtika Ltd. has engaged in unlawful and deceptive practices more generally with respect to Slotomania. Playtika Ltd.’s response to the complaint is due August 21, 2025. As the

On June 6, 2025, plaintiff Stuart Mills filed a putative class action lawsuit against the Company and its subsidiary, Playtika Ltd., on behalf of all Alabama-based players of the Company’s games in the Circuit Court of Franklin County, Alabama. The suit, like the suit brought by Gayla Hamilton Mills, alleges that the Company’s casino-themed social games are unlawful gambling under Alabama law. The lawsuit seeks to recover all amounts paid by Alabama residents to the Company in connection with its games during the period beginning one year before the filing of the lawsuit until the case is resolved. The suit was filed by the same counsel who represent Gayla Hamilton Mills. The Company removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama on July 11, 2025. Plaintiff’s motion to remand to state court, if any, is due August 11, 2025. If no motion to remand is filed, the Company’s responsive pleading to the complaint will be due on September 25, 2025. As the case is in preliminary stages, the Company cannot estimate what impact, if any, the litigation may have on its results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.

On June 24, 2025, we received a letter from the Attorney General of the State of Washington alleging that certain of our games violate state gambling and consumer protection laws, and requesting that we pay certain monetary penalties and prevent those games from being available to play in the state in the future. No litigation has been filed in respect of these allegations. While we disagree with the Attorney General’s allegations, and we intend to vigorously defend the matter, at this time, we are unable to reasonably estimate the potential loss or range of losses we may incur from this matter.

On February 27, 2023, the company received a deficit notice from the Ben Gurion Airport Customs House concerning the purchase of a private aircraft. The deficit notice claims that the company's acquisition of the aircraft is an import into Israel, and, as a result, it was obliged to pay purchase tax and VAT for the acquisition. The company disputes that any tax or VAT is owed. On July 26, 2023, the Customs House's definitive response was received, with the deficit notice still intact. The current claimed amount of the deficit notice is approximately $3.6 million. The Company paid the deficit notice under protest and filed a claim with the district court on December 12, 2023. The Customs House submitted its statement of defense on April 17, 2024 and the Company submitted its response to the statement of defense on June 16, 2024. A pre-trial hearing which was scheduled for June 17, 2025 has been postponed as the parties have been engaged in settlement discussions. The Company intends to pursue this case vigorously.

On June 1, 2024, the Company received pre-arbitration notices from a law firm purporting to represent 5,264 claimants who have played the Company’s games and intend to file arbitration demands alleging that the Company’s games are unlawful or that they otherwise have suffered harm for which recovery is available. On July 26, 2024, the law firm filed arbitration demands on behalf of 4,549 claimants. On September 13, 2024, the arbitral body requested that the Company waive certain dispute resolution provisions in the version of the terms of service invoked by claimants as a condition to its administering the arbitration. The Company declined to waive such provisions and, as a result, the arbitration was closed on October 3, 2024. On September 16, 2024, the Company received pre-arbitration notices from the same law firm purporting to represent an additional 2,560 claimants alleging the same claims as the other claimants. As of the date hereof, the Company lacks adequate information to assess the nature or validity of these claims. As such, the Company cannot estimate what impact, if any, these claims may have on its results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. The Company intends to defend these claims vigorously.

On October 17, 2024, the Company received pre-arbitration notices from a different law firm purporting to represent 798 claimants who have played the Company’s games and intend to file arbitration demands alleging that the Company’s games are unlawful and that the claimants made purchases in the Company’s games which were the result of unfair and deceptive practices that violate consumer protection laws. On January 31, 2025, the affiliated law firms filed arbitration demands on behalf of approximately 1,500 claimants. Due to the dispute resolution provisions in the version of the Company’s terms of service invoked by claimants, the arbitral body declined to arbitrate the claims and the arbitration was closed on March 10, 2025. On March 23, 2025, the Company received pre-arbitration notices from the same law firm purporting to represent another 902 claimants. On April 15, 2025, the Company received notice that pre-arbitration notices for 194 claimants had been filed in error and were being withdrawn. On April 24, 2025, one of the affiliated law firms filed the putative class action on behalf of plaintiff Debbie Duncan described above. As these claims are in preliminary stages, the Company cannot estimate what impact, if any, they may have on its results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. The Company intends to defend these claims vigorously.

On July 8, 2025, the Company received pre-arbitration notices from another law firm purporting to represent 3,860 claimants who have played the Company’s games and intend to file arbitration demands alleging that the Company’s social casino games violate state laws against gambling and that the games use false, deceptive and misleading practices. The notice demands the payment of the greater of $5,000 or the actual amount of in-game losses for the claimants, plus punitive and other damages and attorneys’ fees as well as the cessation of the alleged unlawful conduct. On August 5, 2025, we were notified that the law firm was continuing to solicit claimants and that they now represented 4,688 claimants. As of the date hereof, the Company lacks adequate information to assess the nature or validity of these claims. As such, the Company cannot estimate what impact, if any, these claims may have on its results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. The Company intends to defend these claims vigorously.