In August 2021, the Company entered into an exclusive agreement with a cloud service provider to host its voice artificial intelligence platform pursuant to which the Company committed to pay a minimum of $98.0 million in cloud costs over a seven-year period subject to variable increases based on usage.

From time to time, the Company may have certain contingent liabilities that arise in the ordinary course of its business activities. The Company accrues contingent liabilities when it is probable that future expenditures will be made, and such expenditures can be reasonably estimated. The Company's assessment may change over time as individual proceedings or claims progress.

Prior to the SYNQ3 Acquisition, SYNQ3 filed a litigation against its landlord, TEBO in the United States District Court of Colorado, and TEBO counterclaimed in May 2022. On June 2, 2022, the District Court entered a judgment that was in favor of SYNQ3. TEBO filed the notice of appeal in July, 2023. On June 27, 2024, the Colorado Court of Appeals reversed the judgment and remanded the case to the District Court to enter judgment in favor of TEBO on both SYNQ3’s claim and TEBO’s counterclaim and to conduct further proceedings as are necessary to determine the damages, attorney fees and costs, if any, to be awarded to TEBO. On January 15, 2025, the Company entered a Settlement Agreement with TEBO. The Settlement Agreement requires SYNQ3 to pay $1.8 million to TEBO in January 2025 to resolve all matters related to the litigation and dispute. Therefore, the Company paid $1.8 million to TEBO under the Settlement Agreement during the first quarter of 2025, which was offset by the Deferred Consideration and Contingent Holdback Consideration under the SYNQ3 Acquisition and was withheld from the sellers when the Holdback Amount was settled in April 2025.

On November 21, 2024, VB Assets, LLC, a non-practicing entity, filed a complaint against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware alleging patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271. The case is captioned as VB Assets, LLC v. SoundHound AI, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-1279-MN. In its complaint, VB Assets, LLC alleges the Company is infringing U.S. Patent Nos. 8,073,681, 11,222,626, 8,886,536, 9,269,097, 9,502,025, and 11,087,385. VB Assets, LLC subsequently amended its complaint adding allegations that the Company is also infringing U.S. Patent Nos. 10,755,699, 10,297,249, and 7,818,176. At the appropriate time, the Company will deny all infringement allegations and allege that VB Assets, LLC patents asserted against the Company are invalid and/or unenforceable. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in all respects. As of June 30, 2025, no determination can be made as to the likelihood of a favorable or unfavorable outcome. In accordance with ASC 450, Contingencies, no reasonably possible loss or range of loss can be estimated and accrued as of June 30, 2025.

On March 28, 2025, a class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned Liles v. SoundHound AI, Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-02915-RFL. The complaint names as defendants the Company, its CEO Keyvan Mohajer, and its CFO Nitesh Sharan. The complaint asserts, among other things, claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Plaintiff seeks to represent a putative class of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired SoundHound securities between May 10, 2024 and March 3, 2025, both dates inclusive. The Company intends to vigorously defend the claims and believes the complaint lacks merit. As of June 30, 2025, no determination can be made as to the likelihood of a favorable or unfavorable outcome. In accordance with ASC 450, Contingencies, no reasonably possible loss or range of loss can be estimated and accrued as of June 30, 2025.

On April 8, 2025, a purported shareholder derivative complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned Bishop v. Mohajer, Case No. 3:25-cv-03172-JD. The complaint purports to assert claims on behalf of the Company against its directors, CEO, and CFO for breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, waste of corporate assets, and for contribution against Mr. Mohajer and Mr. Sharan under Sections 10(b) and 21D of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On April 16, 2025, a similar purported shareholder derivative complaint was filed against the same defendants in the same forum, captioned Roy v. Mohajer, Case No. 5:25-cv-03363-NC. That complaint purports to assert claims on behalf of the Company against its directors, CEO, and CFO for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, and for contribution against Mr. Mohajer and Mr. Sharan under Sections 10(b) and 21D of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. As of June 30, 2025, no determination can be made as to the likelihood of a favorable or unfavorable outcome. In accordance with ASC 450, Contingencies, no reasonably possible loss or range of loss can be estimated and accrued as of June 30, 2025.

On February 6, 2025, a stockholder of the Company filed a putative class action (the “Corporate Opportunity Action”), alleging inter alia that Article XII, Section 12.1 of the Company’s Certificate of Incorporation violates Delaware law. The Company and its directors denied any and all wrongdoing alleged in the Corporate Opportunity Action but, to avoid the cost and distraction of litigation, the Board determined that it was advisable and in the best interests of the Company and its stockholders to revise Article XII of the Certificate of Incorporation (the “Opportunity Waiver Limitation Amendment”) and to submit the Opportunity Waiver Limitation Amendment to Company’s stockholders for approval.

The Corporate Opportunity Action plaintiff agreed that the proposed language mooted his claims. The Company's stockholders approved the Opportunity Waiver Limitation Amendment on May 23, 2025. The Company reached an agreement whereby, without admitting any fault or wrongdoing, the Company agreed to pay $85.0 thousand in attorneys’ fees and expenses to the plaintiff’s counsel (including a $0.5 thousand service award to the plaintiff) as the mootness fee to resolve this matter. On July 24, 2025, the Court entered an order closing the case, subject to the Company filing an affidavit with the Court confirming compliance with the order. In entering the order, the Court did not review, and did not pass judgment on, the payment of the mootness fee.