Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2025
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 12. Commitments and Contingencies Legal Matters We are party to various legal actions that oftentimes arise in the normal course of business. The most significant matters are described below. Under GAAP, loss contingency provisions are recorded when we deem it probable that we will incur a loss and we are able to formulate a reasonable estimate of that loss. For the legal matters discussed below, we either believe loss is not probable or are unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any. The process of resolving these matters is inherently uncertain and may develop over an extended period of time; therefore, at this time, the ultimate resolutions cannot be predicted. As of June 30, 2025 and December 31, 2024, we had no material liabilities established related to the legal matters discussed below. On October 7, 2024, a putative securities class action lawsuit captioned Joseph Barpar v. Elanco Animal Health Inc., et al. (Barpar) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland against Elanco and two of its executives. Barpar alleged claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Act) and specifically alleged that Elanco and the two executives made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose certain facts about the safety of and labeling for our Zenrelia® product, as well as the approval and launch timelines for Zenrelia and our Credelio Quattro™ product. The plaintiff purported to represent purchasers of Elanco securities between November 7, 2023 and June 26, 2024. On March 21, 2025, plaintiff filed an amended complaint that extended the time period for which the plaintiff purported to represent purchasers of Elanco securities to between May 9, 2023 and June 26, 2024. The amended complaint also removed allegations concerning the approval and launch timelines for our Credelio Quattro product. On May 20, 2025, we filed a motion to dismiss this case. Following the filing of Barpar, several derivative cases were filed, all of which have been stayed pending the outcome of the Barpar motion to dismiss. On November 1, 2024, a shareholder derivative action captioned Lawrence Hollin v. Lawrence E. Kurzius, et al. (Hollin) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland against current members of Elanco's Board of Directors and senior management, alleging claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Act and state law claims for breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment and waste of corporate assets, based on allegations substantially similar to the allegations in the putative class action complaint in Barpar. On March 11, 2025, a shareholder derivative action captioned James Habermehl v. Jeffrey N. Simmons, et al. was filed in Hancock County Circuit Court of Indiana, against the same parties named in Hollin, alleging claims under Indiana state law for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment, based on allegations substantially similar to the allegations in the putative class action complaint in Barpar. On April 28, 2025, a shareholder derivative action captioned Christopher Dougherty v. Elanco Animal Health, Inc., et al. (Dougherty), was filed in the District of Maryland, naming certain Elanco executives and 13 Elanco Board members as defendants. Dougherty alleges the defendants engaged in conspiratorial and individually culpable conduct based on materially false or misleading statements and omissions alleged in, referenced or related to, in large part, the putative class action complaint in Barpar, as well as breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, and as to the certain executives, contribution under Section 15, U.S.C. § 78j(b) and Section 21D of the Act. On June 11, 2025, a shareholder derivative action captioned Mike Sexton v. Jeffrey N. Simmons, et al. (Sexton) was filed in Hancock County Circuit Court of Indiana against largely the same parties as in Hollin, alleging claims under Indiana state law for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement and waste of corporate assets. We are vigorously defending our positions in connection with each of these actions. On May 20, 2020, a shareholder class action lawsuit captioned Hunter v. Elanco Animal Health Inc., et al. (Hunter) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana against Elanco and certain executives. On September 3, 2020, the court appointed a lead plaintiff, and on November 9, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint adding additional claims against Elanco, certain executives and other individuals. The lawsuit alleged, in part, that Elanco and certain of its executives made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose certain facts about Elanco’s supply chain, inventory, revenue and projections. The lawsuit sought unspecified monetary damages and purports to represent purchasers of Elanco securities between September 30, 2018 and May 6, 2020, and purchasers of Elanco common stock issued in connection with Elanco's acquisition of Aratana Therapeutics, Inc. On January 13, 2021, we filed a motion to dismiss, and on August 17, 2022, the Court issued an order granting our motion to dismiss the case without prejudice. On October 14, 2022, the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint. On December 7, 2022, we filed an opposition to the plaintiffs' motion, and on September 27, 2023, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for leave, issuing final judgment in favor of Elanco. On October 25, 2023, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. We intend to continue to vigorously defend our position. On October 16, 2020, a shareholder class action lawsuit captioned Safron Capital Corporation v. Elanco Animal Health Inc., et al. was filed in the Marion Superior Court of Indiana against Elanco, certain executives and other individuals and entities. On December 23, 2020, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding an additional plaintiff. The lawsuit alleges, in part, that Elanco and certain of its executives made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose certain facts about Elanco’s relationships with third-party distributors and revenue attributable to those distributors within the registration statement on Form S-3 dated January 21, 2020, and accompanying prospectus filed in connection with Elanco’s public offering which closed on or about January 27, 2020. The lawsuit seeks unspecified monetary damages and purports to represent purchasers of Elanco common stock or tangible equity units issued in connection with the public offering. From February 2021 to August 2022, this case was stayed in deference to Hunter. On October 24, 2022, we filed a motion to dismiss. On December 23, 2022, the plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motion to dismiss. Prior to the ruling on the motion to dismiss, on June 8, 2023, the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, which is now the operative complaint. We filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on August 7, 2023, to which the plaintiffs filed their opposition on October 13, 2023. On April 17, 2024, our motion to dismiss was granted. On or about October 4, 2024, the plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the Indiana Court of Appeals. Subsequently, on or about March 20, 2025, the plaintiffs' motion for oral argument was denied, and on August 1, 2025, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s order granting our motion to dismiss. The plaintiff may petition the court for rehearing or seek further review. We intend to continue to vigorously defend our position. In the third quarter of 2019, Tevra Brands, LLC (Tevra) filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of California, alleging that Bayer Animal Health (acquired by us in August 2020) had been involved in unlawful, exclusive dealing and tying of its flea and tick products Advantage, Advantix and Seresto™ and maintained a monopoly in the market. The complaint was amended in March 2020 and then dismissed in September 2020 with leave to amend. A second amended complaint was filed in March 2021 and realleged claims of unlawful exclusive dealing related to Advantage and Advantix and monopoly maintenance. A motion to dismiss the second amended complaint was denied in January 2022. Tevra’s demands included both actual and treble damages. On April 16, 2024, the court granted our motion for summary judgment to exclude all damages subsequent to our acquisition of Bayer Animal Health in August 2020. A jury trial was held in July 2024, and on August 1, 2024, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Bayer Animal Health. In January 2025, Tevra's motion for a new trial was denied, and in February 2025, Tevra filed its notice of appeal. Following the initial Tevra trial, three additional matters have been filed against us, both in the Northern District of California and in the Southern District of Indiana, most recently in January 2025: Tracy Spradlin v. Elanco Animal Health, Inc. (Spradlin), Tevra Brands, LLC v. Elanco Animal Health, Inc. (Tevra v. Elanco), and Susan Kraus-Silfen v. Elanco Animal Health, Inc. et. al. (Kraus-Silfen). While there are substantive and statutory differences, the allegations underpinning these matters are similar in some respects to the initial Tevra matter including, but not limited to, the family of pet health products and sales tactics and agreements alleged to drive a monopoly within the market. Spradlin and Kraus-Silfen are putative class actions, and all three of these additional matters seek injunctive relief and an unspecified amount of monetary relief. On March 31, 2025, our motion to dismiss Tevra v. Elanco was granted by the court without prejudice to plaintiff's right to file an amended claim. We filed motions to dismiss Spradlin and Kraus-Silfen on October 25, 2024 and April 25, 2025, respectively. We are vigorously defending against each of the claims made in these matters.

We are party to various legal actions that oftentimes arise in the normal course of business. The most significant matters are described below. Under GAAP, loss contingency provisions are recorded when we deem it probable that we will incur a loss and we are able to formulate a reasonable estimate of that loss. For the legal matters discussed below, we either believe loss is not probable or are unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any. The process of resolving these matters is inherently uncertain and may develop over an extended period of time; therefore, at this time, the ultimate resolutions cannot be predicted. As of June 30, 2025 and December 31, 2024, we had no material liabilities established related to the legal matters discussed below.

On October 7, 2024, a putative securities class action lawsuit captioned Joseph Barpar v. Elanco Animal Health Inc., et al. (Barpar) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland against Elanco and two of its executives. Barpar alleged claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Act) and specifically alleged that Elanco and the two executives made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose certain facts about the safety of and labeling for our Zenrelia® product, as well as the approval and launch timelines for Zenrelia and our Credelio Quattro™ product. The plaintiff purported to represent purchasers of Elanco securities between November 7, 2023 and June 26, 2024. On March 21, 2025, plaintiff filed an amended complaint that extended the time period for which the plaintiff purported to represent purchasers of Elanco securities to between May 9, 2023 and June 26, 2024. The amended complaint also removed allegations concerning the approval and launch timelines for our Credelio Quattro product. On May 20, 2025, we filed a motion to dismiss this case.

Following the filing of Barpar, several derivative cases were filed, all of which have been stayed pending the outcome of the Barpar motion to dismiss. On November 1, 2024, a shareholder derivative action captioned Lawrence Hollin v. Lawrence E. Kurzius, et al. (Hollin) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland against current members of Elanco's Board of Directors and senior management, alleging claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Act and state law claims for breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment and waste of corporate assets, based on allegations substantially similar to the allegations in the putative class action complaint in Barpar. On March 11, 2025, a shareholder derivative action captioned James Habermehl v. Jeffrey N. Simmons, et al. was filed in Hancock County Circuit Court of Indiana, against the same parties named in Hollin, alleging claims under Indiana state law for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment, based on allegations substantially similar to the allegations in the putative class action complaint in Barpar. On April 28, 2025, a shareholder derivative action captioned Christopher Dougherty v. Elanco Animal Health, Inc., et al. (Dougherty), was filed in the District of Maryland, naming certain Elanco executives and 13 Elanco Board members as defendants. Dougherty alleges the defendants engaged in conspiratorial and individually culpable conduct based on materially false or misleading statements and omissions alleged in, referenced or related to, in large part, the putative class action complaint in Barpar, as well as breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, and as to the certain executives, contribution under Section 15, U.S.C. § 78j(b) and Section 21D of the Act. On June 11, 2025, a shareholder derivative action captioned Mike Sexton v. Jeffrey N. Simmons, et al. (Sexton) was filed in Hancock County Circuit Court of Indiana against largely the same parties as in Hollin, alleging claims under Indiana state law for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement and waste of corporate assets. We are vigorously defending our positions in connection with each of these actions.

On May 20, 2020, a shareholder class action lawsuit captioned Hunter v. Elanco Animal Health Inc., et al. (Hunter) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana against Elanco and certain executives. On September 3, 2020, the court appointed a lead plaintiff, and on November 9, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint adding additional claims against Elanco, certain executives and other individuals. The lawsuit alleged, in part, that Elanco and certain of its executives made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose certain facts about Elanco’s supply chain, inventory, revenue and projections. The lawsuit sought unspecified monetary damages and purports to represent purchasers of Elanco securities between September 30, 2018 and May 6, 2020, and purchasers of Elanco common stock issued in connection with Elanco's acquisition of Aratana Therapeutics, Inc. On January 13, 2021, we filed a motion to dismiss, and on August 17, 2022, the Court issued an order granting our motion to dismiss the case without prejudice. On October 14, 2022, the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint. On December 7, 2022, we filed an opposition to the plaintiffs' motion, and on September 27, 2023, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for leave, issuing final judgment in favor of Elanco. On October 25, 2023, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. We intend to continue to vigorously defend our position.

On October 16, 2020, a shareholder class action lawsuit captioned Safron Capital Corporation v. Elanco Animal Health Inc., et al. was filed in the Marion Superior Court of Indiana against Elanco, certain executives and other individuals and entities. On December 23, 2020, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding an additional plaintiff. The lawsuit alleges, in part, that Elanco and certain of its executives made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose certain facts about Elanco’s relationships with third-party distributors and revenue attributable to those distributors within the registration statement on Form S-3 dated January 21, 2020, and accompanying prospectus filed in connection with Elanco’s public offering which closed on or about January 27, 2020. The lawsuit seeks unspecified monetary damages and purports to represent purchasers of Elanco common stock or tangible equity units issued in connection with the public offering. From February 2021 to August 2022, this case was stayed in deference to Hunter. On October 24, 2022, we filed a motion to dismiss. On December 23, 2022, the plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motion to dismiss. Prior to the ruling on the motion to dismiss, on June 8, 2023, the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, which is now the operative complaint. We filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on August 7, 2023, to which the plaintiffs filed their opposition on October 13, 2023. On April 17, 2024, our motion to dismiss was granted. On or about October 4, 2024, the plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the Indiana Court of Appeals. Subsequently, on or about

In the third quarter of 2019, Tevra Brands, LLC (Tevra) filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of California, alleging that Bayer Animal Health (acquired by us in August 2020) had been involved in unlawful, exclusive dealing and tying of its flea and tick products Advantage, Advantix and Seresto™ and maintained a monopoly in the market. The complaint was amended in March 2020 and then dismissed in September 2020 with leave to amend. A second amended complaint was filed in March 2021 and realleged claims of unlawful exclusive dealing related to Advantage and Advantix and monopoly maintenance. A motion to dismiss the second amended complaint was denied in January 2022. Tevra’s demands included both actual and treble damages. On April 16, 2024, the court granted our motion for summary judgment to exclude all damages subsequent to our acquisition of Bayer Animal Health in August 2020. A jury trial was held in July 2024, and on August 1, 2024, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Bayer Animal Health. In January 2025, Tevra's motion for a new trial was denied, and in February 2025, Tevra filed its notice of appeal. Following the initial Tevra trial, three additional matters have been filed against us, both in the Northern District of California and in the Southern District of Indiana, most recently in January 2025: Tracy Spradlin v. Elanco Animal Health, Inc. (Spradlin), Tevra Brands, LLC v. Elanco Animal Health, Inc. (Tevra v. Elanco), and Susan Kraus-Silfen v. Elanco Animal Health, Inc. et. al. (Kraus-Silfen). While there are substantive and statutory differences, the allegations underpinning these matters are similar in some respects to the initial Tevra matter including, but not limited to, the family of pet health products and sales tactics and agreements alleged to drive a monopoly within the market. Spradlin and Kraus-Silfen are putative class actions, and all three of these additional matters seek injunctive relief and an unspecified amount of monetary relief. On March 31, 2025, our motion to dismiss Tevra v. Elanco was granted by the court without prejudice to plaintiff's right to file an amended claim. We filed motions to dismiss Spradlin and Kraus-Silfen on October 25, 2024 and April 25, 2025, respectively. We are vigorously defending against each of the claims made in these matters.