Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2025
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies The Company is, from time to time, subject to claims and disputes arising in the normal course of business. In the opinion of management, the outcome of any such claims and disputes cannot be predicted with certainty. Legal Proceedings Against the Company As of June 30, 2025 and December 31, 2024, the Company had accrued legal contingencies of $10.1 million and $9.1 million, respectively, recorded within Accrued expenses and other current liabilities and Accounts payable for potential financial exposure related to ongoing legal matters, primarily related to breach of contracts and employment matters, which are deemed both probable of loss and reasonably estimable. Class and Derivative Actions Zhou v. Faraday Future Intelligent Electric Inc. f/k/a Property Solutions Acquisition Corp. et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-009914 (U.S. District Court – Central District of California). On December 23, 2021, a putative class action lawsuit alleging violations of the Exchange Act was filed in the United States District Court, Central District of California, against the Company and its former Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, and its then-Chief Product and User Ecosystem Officer (who was promoted to Global Co-CEO in April 2025; See Note 16 for change in Company’s governance related to Mr. Jia’s role), as well as the Co-CEOs of Property Solutions Acquisition Corp. (“PSAC”). On May 6, 2022, the appointed lead plaintiffs in the Zhou putative class action filed an amended complaint alleging violations of Sections 10(b), 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act, and related “control” person claims for secondary liability under those statutes, seeking unspecified damages. Following motion to dismiss briefing and the subsequent court-ordered dismissal of several of the plaintiffs’ claims, answers were filed and the parties agreed to participate in mediation. On April 27, 2023, the court granted the parties’ joint motion for a temporary stay pending mediation. The parties thereafter participated in a private mediation on June 29, 2023. After further discussions and negotiations, the parties reached an agreement-in-principle to settle the Zhou putative class action. Although denying all allegations, the Company nevertheless agreed to settle the Zhou putative class action for a non-reversionary cash payment of $7.5 million to be funded entirely by the Company’s insurers for the benefit of the settlement class, in exchange for the release of all claims that were or could have been asserted against the Company. The court thereafter granted preliminary approval of the settlement on November 7, 2023, and scheduled a hearing for final approval of the settlement to take place on March 18, 2024. On January 23, 2024, the ostensible lead plaintiff in the Consolidated Delaware Class Action discussed below, filed an Objection to final approval of the settlement (the “Objection”) to which the Company and the other defendants responded on March 11, 2024. On March 18, 2024, the court overruled the Objection in its entirety and entered an Order finally approving the Zhou putative class action settlement. Farazmand v. Breitfeld et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-01570 (U.S. District Court – Central District of California). Zhou v Breitfeld et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-01852 (U.S. District Court – Central District of California). Moubarak v. Breitfeld et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00467 (U.S. District Court – District of Delaware). Wang v. Breitfeld et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00525 (U.S. District Court – District of Delaware). Wallace v. Breitfeld et al., Case No. 2023-0639-KSJM (Delaware Court of Chancery). Ashkan Farazmand and Wangjun Zhou v. Breitfeld, et al., Case No. 2023-1283 (Delaware Court of Chancery). On March 8 (Farazmand) and March 21 (Zhou), 2022, putative stockholder derivative lawsuits were respectively filed in the United States District Court, Central District of California and were subsequently consolidated in an action entitled In re Faraday Future Intelligent Electric Inc. Case No. 2:22-cv-1570 (the “California Federal Derivative Action”). The California Federal Derivative Action was stayed pending resolution of certain proceedings in the Zhou putative class action discussed above, which stay expired in February 2023. Plaintiffs thereafter filed a verified consolidated amended complaint on June 2, 2023, in response to which the Company and the other defendants filed a motion to dismiss. On January 22, 2024, the court granted in part, and denied in part, the motion to dismiss with leave to amend. On February 6, 2024, the parties filed a stipulation to stay the California Federal Derivative Action pending mediation that was entered by the court on February 12, 2024. On April 11 (Moubarak) and April 25 (Wang), 2022, putative stockholder derivative lawsuits were respectively filed in the United States Delaware District Court (collectively, the “Delaware Federal Derivative Actions”). On February 6, 2023, the Delaware Derivative Actions were stayed pending resolution of the pending proceedings in the Zhou putative class action. On June 21 (Wallace) and December 22 (Farazmand), 2023, putative derivative lawsuits were respectively filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery (collectively, the “Delaware State Derivative Actions”). The parties stipulated to a stay of the Wallace action which was entered by the court on December 29, 2023. Each of the foregoing derivative lawsuits purported to assert claims on behalf of the Company against certain of the Company’s current and former officers and directors for alleged violations of the Exchange Act or for various common law claims based upon those officers’ and directors’ alleged breaches of their purported fiduciary duties owed to the Company and/or for their alleged aiding and abetting of those purported breaches, resulting in unspecified damages to the Company. Although the complaints filed in the foregoing lawsuits vary in detail, they are generally premised upon many of the same underlying allegations made in the Zhou putative class action. The parties to the foregoing derivative lawsuits participated in a mediation on May 13, 2024, following which they reached a settlement in principle. On July 19, 2024, the parties entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement that was filed in the California Federal Derivative Action, which incorporated all of the foregoing derivative lawsuits respectively filed in California and Delaware. On September 3, 2024, the California Federal Derivative Action Court entered an order preliminarily approving the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement (the “Preliminary Approval Order”) and provided for notice of the same to be made to Current Stockholders. On October 30, 2024, the California Federal Derivative Action Court approved the Settlement Agreement, resolving all of the foregoing derivative lawsuits. Following the approval of the Settlement Agreement, the California Federal Derivative Action was dismissed on October 30, 2024 and the Delaware Federal Derivative Actions were dismissed on November 15, 2024 (Wang) and November 19, 2024 (Moubarak). On December 31, 2024, the parties in the Farazmand filed a stipulation of dismissal which was subsequently entered by the court. The Consolidated Delaware Class Action On June 14, 2022, a verified stockholder class action complaint was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery against, among others, the Company, its former Global CEO and CFO, and its then-Chief Product and User Ecosystem Officer (who was promoted to Global Co-CEO in April 2025; See Note 16 for change in Company’s governance related to Mr. Jia’s role), alleging breaches of fiduciary duties (the “Yun Class Action”). On September 21, 2022, a second verified stockholder class action complaint was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery against, among others, the Company, the Global Co-CEOs and independent directors of PSAC, and certain third-party advisors to PSAC, alleging breaches of fiduciary duties, and aiding and abetting those alleged breaches, in connection with disclosures and stockholder voting leading up to the PSAC/Legacy FF merger (the “Cleveland Class Action”). The Cleveland and Yun Class Actions subsequently were consolidated the complaint in the Cleveland Class Action being designated as the operative pleading (collectively, the “Consolidated Delaware Class Action”). In April 2023, the defendants respectively filed motions to dismiss that complaint. While the defendants’ motions to dismiss were pending, the Central District of California approved the Zhou putative class action settlement. On May 24, 2024, the defendants in the Consolidated Delaware Class Action filed a motion for summary judgment based upon the court-approved settlement agreement in Zhou putative class action on the grounds that among other things, the releases of that settlement agreement barred the claims in the Consolidated Delaware Class Action. On February 10, 2025, the Delaware Court of Chancery granted summary judgment and dismissed the Consolidated Delaware Class Action both in its entirety and with prejudice. Additionally, on September 19, 2022, FF Global, filed a lawsuit in the Chancery Court of the State of Delaware against the Company, seeking the removal of Ms. Susan Swenson and Mr. Brian Krolicki from the Board. On September 27, 2022, the case was dismissed without prejudice pursuant to an agreement between FF Global and FF Top (the “Heads of Agreement”). Shortly following the execution of the Heads of Agreement, FF Global began making additional demands of the Company which were beyond the scope of the terms contemplated by the Heads of Agreement and pertained to, among other things, the Company’s management reporting lines and certain governance matters. On September 30, 2022, FF Global alleged that the Company was in material breach of the spirit of the Heads of Agreement. The Company believes it has complied with the applicable terms of the Heads of Agreement and disputes any characterization to the contrary. Such disputes divert management and Board resources and are costly. There can be no assurance that this or any other dispute between the Company and FF Global will not result in litigation. On October 3, 2022, Ms. Swenson and Mr. Scott Vogel, a member of the Board, tendered their resignation from the Board effective immediately. On October 3, 2022, Mr. Jordan Vogel also tendered his resignation from the Board effective on October 5, 2022. On October 28, 2022, Mr. Brian Krolicki tendered his resignation from the Board effective immediately. Legal Proceedings Initiated by the Company The Company has determined there to be financial exposure related to an ongoing legal matter, primarily arising from the bankruptcy of a key supplier. The exposure involves previously recorded deposits and tooling equipment, which have since become subject to legal contingency considerations due to the supplier’s insolvency. The Company initially recorded $1.9 million in deposits and $12.9 million in tooling equipment in connection with its contractual relationship with a primary supplier. These amounts were originally recognized as a deposit paid for goods and services and tooling received, respectively, and continue to be reflected in their originally recorded accounts on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. However, following the primary supplier’s bankruptcy filing, these balances were identified as at risk, creating potential financial exposure for the Company. The $2.7 million charge consists of a $1.4 million write-off of deposits and a $1.3 million accrual for additional payments the Company expects to have to make to maintain access to its tooling located at vendors of the key supplier (the “secondary suppliers”). The $1.4 million write-off of deposits reflects the Company's estimate that recovery of that asset is not probable and leaves a remaining exposure of $0.5 million. The Company does not expect any further financial loss related to tooling. Although the Company has title to the tooling; the secondary suppliers have possession of it. The Company anticipates establishing a direct contractual arrangement with the secondary suppliers. Once in place, these agreements are expected to provide the Company with continued access to the tooling without additional financial exposure. Legal Action Against Tesca USA and Tesca ABC On March 6, 2025, Faraday&Future Inc. (“Faraday”) filed a demand for arbitration against Tesca USA, Inc. and Tesca ABC, LLC alleging the breach of an Engineering Services Agreement (“ESA”) between Tesca USA and Faraday&Future Inc., under which Tesca USA was obligated to produce certain items related to automobile seating assembly and frame production. Pursuant to the ESA, Faraday paid Tesca USA approximately $36.0 million for certain parts, tooling, engineering design and development, and other items. According to a Verified Petition Regarding Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors filed in May 2024, Tesca USA, after failing to deliver any of these products or services to Faraday, assigned all its assets to Tesca ABC, a Delaware series limited liability company. Faraday has reason to suspect that Tesca USA may have made one or more large cash transfers to Tesca Group before it commenced the Assignment for Benefit of Creditors. Faraday is seeking in excess of $36.0 million in damages through this arbitration. The Company is unable to evaluate the likelihood of a favorable outcome given the early stages of these legal proceedings. Governance Matters Following the completion of the Special Committee (as defined below) investigation through the date hereof, the Company and certain of its directors and officers have received numerous e-mail communications from a group of self-described “employee whistleblowers” and from various individuals and entities who represented themselves as current investors of the Company. These communications have included various allegations (including, for example, that certain directors have conspired to push the Company into bankruptcy for their own personal gain) and requests for certain organizational and governance changes. The Company engaged an independent law firm to conduct a thorough independent external investigation with respect to these allegations. The independent investigation found that all such allegations have been without merit. Other Legal Matters On January 30, 2023, Riverside Management Group, LLC (“Riverside”) filed a verified complaint seeking to enforce its alleged contractual right to the advancement of all reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees, it has and will incur as a named defendant in the Consolidated Delaware Class Action under its October 13, 2020 Transaction Services Agreement with the Company and Property Solutions Acquisition Sponsor, LLC (the “TSA”), pursuant to which Riverside provided PSAC with advisory services in connection with the PSAC/Legacy FF merger. In addition to seeking the advancement of such costs and expenses, Riverside also sought an award of its attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in enforcing its alleged advancement rights under the TSA, and concurrently filed a Motion for Expedited Proceedings, requesting that trial of the action be conducted on a summary basis and commence within 30 days of the motion’s disposition. The Company subsequently entered into a Stipulation and Order with Riverside under which it would conditionally advance Riverside the reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs it incurs in defense of the Consolidated Delaware Action, subject to, and in express reservation of, the Company’s right to recover all such fees and expenses following disposition of the Consolidated Delaware Class Action which, as noted above, was dismissed, with prejudice, on summary judgment by the Delaware Chancery Court. On January 31, 2023, Raymond Handling Solutions, Inc. (“Raymond”), an equipment supplier, filed an action alleging that the Company breached its contract with Raymond and refused to pay for warehouse racking equipment. Raymond requested a judgment in its favor in the amount of $1.1 million. On April 15, 2024, the Company and Raymond executed a Settlement Agreement under which Raymond released all claims in exchange for the return the of racking equipment. In July 2021, the Company and Palantir entered into a Master Subscription Agreement (“MSA”) setting forth the terms of the Palantir platform hosting arrangement which was expected to be used as a central operating system for data and analytics. On April 26, 2023, the Company received a letter from Palantir Technologies Inc. (“Palantir”) providing a notice of dispute alleging that the Company had not paid outstanding invoices totaling $12.3 million. On July 7, 2023, Palantir filed a Demand for Arbitration against the Company with Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, Inc., regarding the parties’ dispute under the MSA in which it alleged that the amount in controversy was $41.5 million. On August 4, 2023, the Company submitted its response to Palantir’s arbitration demand, which response included both affirmative defenses and a general denial of all allegations of Palantir’s arbitration demand. On March 11, 2024, the Company and Palantir executed a Settlement and Release Agreement terminating the MSA and resolving all of the parties’ disputes in exchange for the Company’s agreement to pay Palantir $5.0 million, with a liquidated damages clause of $0.3 million for late payments. This settlement includes mutual waivers and releases of claims to avoid future disputes. On August 9, 2024, the Company and Palantir entered into an amendment to the Settlement and Release Agreement pursuant to which, in lieu of paying the remaining $4.8 million due under the settlement agreement in cash, the parties agreed that the Company would issue, and Palantir would accept, $2.4 million of Class A Common Stock by August 9, 2024, and $2.4 million in Class A Common Stock by October 1, 2024. The August 9, 2024 issuance totaled approximately 11.1 million shares of Common Stock. The Company further agreed to register the shares under the Securities Act for resale by Palantir. On May 2, 2023, the Company received a notice of Commencement of Arbitration by Envisage Group Developments Inc. USA (“Envisage”) for unpaid invoices relating to professional engineering services and for design and manufacture of a Master Buck cube seeking alleged damages of $1.1 million. At the arbitration hearing, the Company disputed the adequacy of Envisage’s documentation for professional services and contended that no contract exists for Master Buck due to unfulfilled payment conditions. The Company further challenged Envisage’s unilateral alteration of payment terms. In June 2024, the arbitrator issued an award to Envisage totaling $1.1 million. Envisage subsequently filed a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. Envisage was ultimately awarded a total of $1.4 million. The parties have reached an agreement to settle their dispute for $0.8 million. On June 12, 2023, the Company received a letter demanding access to the Company’s books and records in connection with (a) the Company entering into the amended and restated shareholder agreement with FF Top Holding LLC n/k/a FF Global and (b) certain other related matters. Given the early stages of the legal proceedings, the Company is unable to evaluate the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome. On June 13, 2023, L & W LLC (“Autokiniton”), a provider of tooling for use in the automotive industry, filed an action in State of Michigan 3rd Judicial Circuit County of Wayne Court alleging the Company breached its contract with Autokiniton and refused to fulfill its obligations under the applicable Purchase Order. Autokiniton requested a judgment in the amount of at least $8.1 million. In discovery, the Company conceded that $4.6 million was due and owing under the Purchase Order. In July 2024, the parties subsequently filed a stipulated order and judgment totaling $8.1 million, plus statutory interest, which was entered by the court. The parties are engaged in discussions regarding this matter. In December 2024, the parties reached an agreement to settle their dispute for $3.7 million. On October 11, 2023, Joseph Hof and Scott McPherson filed a class action lawsuit in Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York against Benchmark 237 LLC, Benchmark Real Estate Trust, SLLC, Canvas Investment Partners, LLC, Canvas Property Group, LLC, Juliet Technologies, LLC, and the Company, alleging that the defendants engaged in various scheming practices that discriminatorily impacted the plaintiffs and other class members The court granted the Company’s Motion to Dismiss on January 12, 2024, and dismissed the case on January 18, 2024. The plaintiffs filed an appeal on February 12, 2024 as to the dismissal orders, which appeal subsequently was dismissed due to the plaintiffs’ failure to timely file their appellate briefs. Although Plaintiffs have a year to file a motion to vacate the dismissal based upon a showing good cause, Plaintiff Hof recently filed a motion to seal the record and expressed the Plaintiffs’ desire to cease litigating the matter further. On December 8, 2023, 10701 Idaho Owner, LLC (“Landlord”) notified the Company of rental defaults amounting to $0.6 million for the months of October to December 2023 and demanded a 5% late fee and 18% annual interest on allegedly overdue amounts. The parties thereafter entered into a First Amendment to the Lease Agreement dated October 19, 2023 to address the Company’s total rent default of $1.1 million, including a $0.1 million, partial payment made on January 26, 2024, and additional late fees and charges of $0.2 million. The amendment established a repayment plan requiring the Company to pay $1.2 million from February 26 to March 31, 2024, and to either replenish or provide a new $0.6 million Letter of Credit. On March 26, 2024, the Landlord served the Company with a Notice to Pay or Quit, demanding payment of $1.0 million within five business days. On April 10, 2024, the Company made a $0.2 million payment to Landlord in exchange for Landlord deferring further action. On February 14, 2024, Rexford Industrial - 18455 Figueroa, LLC (“Rexford”) filed a Complaint for Unlawful Detainer against Faraday SPE, LLC in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. The complaint asserted that the Company has failed to pay outstanding rent in the amount of $0.9 million, and sought recovery of reasonable attorney’s fees and damages. This action is based on a breach of a Lease Agreement dated March 8, 2019, for the premises located at 18455 S. Figueroa Street, Gardena, California, and wherein Rexford is requesting forfeiture of the lease. On April 10, 2024, the court issued a Notice of Dismissal, dismissing the Complaint without prejudice. In February 2024, the Company initiated a lawsuit against Draexlmaier Automotive Technologies of America LLC (“Draexlmaier”) for breach of contract, seeking $3.2 million in damages plus legal costs incurred. The dispute involves two Purchase Orders placed by the Company with Draexlmaier in September 2021 for the development and tooling of FF 91 vehicle consoles. The parties’ agreement included a clause allowing Faraday to terminate the Purchase Orders at any time, with the understanding that Draexlmaier would promptly refund any advanced payments for undelivered items or unperformed work. Faraday met its financial obligations under the agreement and in March 2022, terminated the agreement prior to the start of tooling fabrication and requested a refund of $3.2 million for the undelivered work, which Draexlmaier refund failed to remit. Faraday thereafter issued a final demand for this refund in August 2023, and subsequently initiated its lawsuit against Draexlmaier. In May 2024, Draexlmaier filed an Answer and Counterclaim alleging fraudulent inducement, breach of contract, violations of South Carolina’s Unfair Trade Practices Act, and unjust enrichment, and seeking $5.0 million in damages for breach of contract, as well as unspecified actual, consequential, punitive, and treble damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs. The Company disputes Draexlmaier’s claims and has stated its intention to vigorously defend the action. In June 2025, the court granted each party’s motions to dismiss with respect to the other party’s unjust enrichment claim, but otherwise denied both motions. Given the early stages of these legal proceedings, the Company is unable to evaluate the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome and/or the amount or range of potential loss. On March 25, 2024, Cooper Standard GmbH (“Cooper Standard”) filed a lawsuit against Faraday&Future Inc. in Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, alleging the non-payment of the estimated sum of $1.5 million that was purportedly in breach of contractual obligations set forth in purchase orders, a Letter of Tool Acceptance, and invoices to facilitate the supply of automotive products and services for the FF 91 vehicle from August 2021 to December 2022. The parties have tentatively reached a settlement and are in the process of memorializing their agreement. In June 2025, the parties reached an agreement to settle their dispute for $0.8 million. On March 27 and March 29, 2024, Jose Guerrero and Victoria Xie, the Company’s former Senior Director of Sales and Aftersales, and Go-to-Market Project Manager and Launch Manager, respectively, filed wrongful termination lawsuits against Faraday&Future Inc. and certain of its officers in Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, each of which seeks compensatory, general, and special damages in an amount not less than $1.0 million. On April 19, 2024, another former employee, Karimul Khan, submitted a request for arbitration against the same group of defendants without quantifying the alleged damages sought. Given the early stages of these legal proceedings, the Company is unable to evaluate the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome and/or the amount or range of potential loss. On August 9, 2024, Jeffrey D. Prol, as trustee of the Founding Future Creditors Trust, filed a lawsuit against the Company seeking to compel the production of certain books and records for inspection and requesting attorney’s fees and costs. The plaintiff is demanding inspection to allegedly value his shares of the Company. In March 2025, plaintiff agreed to dismiss the lawsuit without prejudice and a stipulation to dismiss was filed and granted. On August 1, 2024, Yun Han, former Chief Accounting Officer and Interim Chief Financial Officer, filed an arbitration demand claiming that she is owed certain monetary amounts and restricted stock units, pursuant to various agreements with the Company and collectively, totaling approximately $1.2 million. Given the early stages of the proceedings, the Company is unable to evaluate the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome and/or the amount or range of potential loss. In March 2025, BXP filed a lawsuit against the Company, alleging unpaid rent and a balance of approximately $1.0 million under a lease agreement signed with the Company. The parties agreed to settle their dispute for $0.4 million. In May 2025, Costamp Group, as assignee of Vantage Cast Europe, s.r.l. (“Vantage”), filed a lawsuit against the Company, alleging the non-payment of the estimated sum of €2.8 million. Plaintiff alleges that in or about March 2022, Faraday contracted with Vantage to supply automotive component parts pursuant to Faraday's unique specifications. In or about May 2022, Vantage, in reliance on the contract with Faraday, contracted with Costamp Group (a subsidiary of Plaintiff) to supply automotive component parts to Vantage. The claim alleges that Vantage and Costamp Group fully complied with their obligations in manufacturing automotive component parts pursuant to Faraday's specifications and that Vantage sent Faraday invoices and Faraday accepted and paid for its initial orders, but has since refused to accept delivery of the specially manufactured automotive components. Given the early stages of the proceedings, the Company is unable to evaluate the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome and/or the amount or range of potential loss. Dispute with Noteholders In August 2023 and September 2023, the Company received correspondence from each of Senyun, MHL and V W Investment alleging that the Company had entered into oral agreements to compensate those investors for any losses in connection with converting their notes into shares of the Company in order to support the Company’s proposals at the August 2023 special stockholders meeting. The Company is unaware of any such oral agreements and is contesting these claims on multiple grounds. Special Committee Investigation As previously disclosed on November 15, 2021, the Board established a special committee of independent directors (“Special Committee”) to investigate allegations of inaccurate Company disclosures, including those made in an October 2021 short seller report and whistleblower allegations, which resulted in the Company being unable to timely file its third quarter 2021 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021, first quarter 2022 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q and amended Registration Statement on Form S-1 (File No. 333-258993). The Special Committee engaged outside independent legal counsel and a forensic accounting firm to assist with its review. On February 1, 2022, the Company announced that the Special Committee completed its review. On April 14, 2022, the Company announced the completion of additional investigative work based on the Special Committee’s findings which was performed under the direction of the Executive Chairperson, reporting to the Audit Committee. In connection with the Special Committee’s review and subsequent investigative work, the following findings were made: •In connection with the Business Combination, statements made by certain Company employees to certain investors describing the role of Mr. Yueting Jia, within the Company were inaccurate and his involvement in the management of the Company post-Business Combination was more significant than what had been represented to certain investors. •The Company’s statements leading up to the Business Combination that it had received more than 14,000 reservations for the FF 91 vehicle were potentially misleading because only several hundred of those reservations were paid, while the others (totaling 14,000) were unpaid indications of interest. •Consistent with the Company’s previous public disclosures regarding identified material weaknesses in its internal control over financial reporting, the Company’s internal control over financial reporting required an upgrade in personnel and systems. •The Company’s corporate culture failed to sufficiently prioritize compliance. •Mr. Jia’s role as an intermediary in leasing certain properties which were subsequently leased to the Company was not disclosed in the Company’s corporate housing disclosures. •In preparing the Company’s related party transaction disclosures, the Company failed to investigate and identify the sources of loans received from individuals and entities associated with Company employees. In addition, the investigation found that certain individuals failed to fully disclose to individuals involved in the preparation of the Company’s SEC filings their relationships with certain related parties and affiliated entities in connection with, and following, the Business Combination, and failed to fully disclose relevant information, including but not limited to, information in connection with related parties and corporate governance to the Company’s former independent registered public accounting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. The investigation also found that certain individuals failed to cooperate and withheld potentially relevant information in connection with the Special Committee investigation. Among such individuals were non-executive officers or members of the management team of the Company, and remedial action was taken with respect to such individuals based on the extent of their non-cooperation and/or withholding of information. The failure to cooperate with the investigation was taken into consideration in connection with the remedial actions outlined below with respect to Jerry Wang, and withholding of information also affected the remedial action taken with respect to Matthias Aydt. Based on the results of the investigation, the Special Committee concluded that, except as described above, the other substantive allegations of inaccurate Company disclosures that it evaluated, were not supported by the evidence reviewed. Although the investigation did not change any of the above findings with respect to the substantive allegations of inaccurate Company disclosures, the investigation did confirm the need for remedial actions to help ensure enhanced focus on compliance and disclosure within the Company. Based on the results of the Special Committee investigation and subsequent investigative work described above, the Board approved the following remedial actions designed to enhance oversight and corporate governance of the Company:  •the appointment of Susan Swenson, a former member of the Board, to the then newly created position of Executive Chairperson of the Company. •Dr. Carsten Breitfeld, the Company’s former Global CEO, reporting directly to Ms. Swenson and receiving a 25% annual base salary reduction; •the removal of Mr. Jia as an executive officer, who would continue in his position as Chief Product & User Ecosystem Officer of the Company. Certain dual-reporting arrangements were eliminated with respect to Mr. Jia, who also was required to report directly to Ms. Swenson, a non-independent director nominated by FF Top. Please see “Risk Factors–Risks Related to our Business and Industry–Yueting Jia and FF Global, over which Mr. Jia exercises significant influence, have control over our management, business and operations, and may use this control in ways that are not aligned with our business or financial objectives or strategies or that are otherwise inconsistent with our interests.” Mr. Jia also received a 25% annual base salary reduction, and his role was limited from a policy-making position to focusing on (a) Product and Mobility Ecosystem and (b) Internet, Artificial Intelligence, and Advanced R&D technology. On February 26, 2023, after an assessment by the Board of the Company’s management structure, the Board approved Mr. Yueting Jia (alongside Mr. Xuefeng Chen) reporting directly to the Board, as well as FF’s product, mobility ecosystem, I.A.I., and advanced R&D technology departments reporting directly to Mr. Jia. The Board also approved the Company’s user ecosystem, capital markets, human resources and administration, corporate strategy and China departments reporting to both Mr. Jia and Mr. Xuefeng in accordance with processes and controls to be determined by the Board after consultation with the Company’s management. Based on the changes to his responsibilities within the Company, the Board determined that Mr. Jia is an “officer” of the Company within the meaning of Section 16 of the Exchange Act and an “executive officer” of the Company under Rule 3b-7 under the Exchange Act; •On April 24, 2025, the Company announced the appointment of Mr. Yueting Jia as Global Co-Chief Executive Officer ("Global Co-CEO"), jointly leading the Company alongside Matthias Aydt, with a focus on advancing user ecosystem development, supply chain management, EV R&D, finance, legal, and China and Middle East operations; •Matthias Aydt, then Senior Vice President, Business Development and Product Definition and a director of the Company, and currently Global Co-CEO and a director of the Company, being placed on probation as an executive officer for a six-month period, during which period he remained a non-independent member of the Board, and which probationary period has since ended; •the appointment of Jordan Vogel as Lead Independent Director; certain changes to the composition of Board committees, including Brian Krolicki stepping down from his role as Chairman of the Board and Chair of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee and becoming a member of the Audit and Compensation Committees of the Board; Jordan Vogel stepping down from the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee; and Scott Vogel becoming the Chair of the Audit Committee and the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee of the Board; •the suspension without pay of Jiawei (“Jerry”) Wang, the Company’s former Vice President, Global Capital Markets, who subsequently notified the Board of his decision to resign from the Company on April 10, 2022, but remained with the Company as a consultant and was subsequently appointed President of the Company on March 24, 2025; •the assessment and enhancement of Company’s policies and procedures regarding financial accounting and reporting and the upgrading of the Company’s internal control over financial accounting and reporting, including by hiring additional financial reporting and accounting support, in each case at the direction of the Audit Committee; •the implementation of enhanced controls around the Company’s contracting and related party transactions, including regular attestations by the Company’s employees with authority to bind the Company to contracts and related party transactions, for purposes of enabling the Company to make complete and accurate disclosures regarding related party transactions; •the hiring of a Compliance Officer with the title of Deputy General Counsel (hired in March 2023), to report on a dotted line to the Chair of the Audit committee, and a Director of Risks and Internal Controls; and assessing and enhancing FF’s compliance policies and procedures; •the implementation of a comprehensive training program for all directors and officers regarding, among other things, internal Company policies; •the separation of Jarret Johnson, FF’s Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary; and •certain other disciplinary actions and terminations of employment with respect to other Company employees (none of whom is an executive officer). As of March 3, 2025, the Company is continuing to implement certain of the remedial actions approved by the Board. However, certain of these remedial actions are no longer in effect and no assurance can be provided that those remedial measures that continue to be implemented will be implemented in a timely manner or at all or will be successful to prevent inaccurate disclosures in the future. Please see “Risk Factors – Risks Related to our Business and Industry – We have taken remedial measures in response to the Special Committee findings, which may be unsuccessful” included in the Form 10-K. There can be no assurance that such remedial measures will be successful. In addition, there can be no assurance that such remedial measures will be fully implemented in light of the recent corporate governance agreements with FF Top and FF Global and the recent assessment by the Board of FF’s management structure, including management roles, responsibilities and reporting lines and changes to the Board.” However, pursuant to the Heads of Agreement, the Company has implemented certain governance changes that impact certain of the above-discussed remedial actions. On October 3, 2022, Ms. Swenson tendered her resignation from her role as both Executive Chairperson and member of the Board effective immediately. In addition, on October 3, 2022, Mr. Scott Vogel resigned from the Board effective immediately and Mr. Jordan Vogel resigned effective on October 5, 2022. On October 28, 2022, Mr. Brian Krolicki tendered his resignation from the Board effective immediately. On December 15, 2022, Mr. Lee Liu tendered his resignation from the Board, which resignation was effective on December 18, 2022. On December 18, 2022, Mr. Jie Sheng was appointed to the Board, effective immediately, following the resignation of Mr. Liu. On December 25, 2022, Mr. Edwin Goh tendered his resignation from the Board, which resignation was effective on December 26, 2022. On December 27, 2022, Ms. Ke Sun was appointed to the Board, effective immediately, following the resignation of Mr. Goh. Mr. Sheng and Ms. Sun are designees of FF Top pursuant to the Amended Shareholder Agreement. On December 26, 2022, Dr. Carsten Breitfeld tendered his resignation from the Board, which resignation was effective immediately. On December 27, 2022, Mr. Xuefeng Chen was appointed to the Board, effective immediately, following the resignation of Dr. Breitfeld. On January 20, 2023, Mr. Qing Ye tendered his resignation from the Board, which resignation was effective immediately. Mr. Ye remained a consultant of the Company as an independent contractor until November 18, 2023. On January 25, 2023, Mr. Chui Tin Mok was appointed to the Board, effective immediately, following the resignation of Mr. Ye. Each of Ms. Ke Sun and Mr. Xuefeng Chen have subsequently resigned from the Board. Subsequent to the Company announcing the completion of the Special Committee investigation on February 1, 2022, certain members of the management team and employees of the Company received a notice of preservation and subpoena from the staff of the SEC stating that the SEC had commenced a formal investigation relating to the matters that were the subject of the Special Committee investigation. The Company, which had previously voluntarily contacted the SEC in connection with the Special Committee investigation in October 2021, is cooperating fully with the SEC’s investigation. The outcome of such an investigation is difficult to predict. The Company has incurred, and may continue to incur, significant expenses related to legal and other professional services in connection with the SEC investigation. At this stage, the Company is unable to assess whether any material loss or adverse effect is reasonably possible as a result of the SEC’s investigation or to estimate the range of any potential loss. In addition, in June 2022, the Company received a preliminary request for information from the U.S. Department of Justice (the “DOJ”) in connection with the matters that were the subject of the Special Committee investigation. The Company has responded to that request and intends to fully cooperate with any future requests from the DOJ. On June 26, 2025, the Company received a “Wells Notice” from the staff of the SEC stating that the SEC staff made a preliminary determination to recommend that the SEC file an enforcement action against the Company alleging violations of various anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities laws. The SEC staff informed the Company that the alleged violations of anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities laws pertain to purported false or misleading statements in connection with the Company’s 2021 PIPE and SPAC listing, relating to (i) related party transactions, and (ii) Mr. Jia’s role in the Company. An enforcement action may seek an injunction or cease-and-desist order against future violations of provisions of the federal securities laws, the imposition of civil monetary penalties, disgorgement or other equitable relief within the SEC’s authority, or any combination of the foregoing. On June 27, 2025, Jiawei (Jerry) Wang, the Global President of the Company, received a Wells Notice from the SEC, and on June 30, 2025, Mr. Jia received a Wells Notice from the SEC. Each of these notices also states that the SEC staff made a preliminary determination to recommend that the SEC file an enforcement action against Mr. Wang and Mr. Jia alleging similar violations in their individual capacities of various anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities laws detailed above. An enforcement action may seek any of the above-referenced remedies, as well as a bar from serving as an officer or director of a public company. Two other former Company employees also received Wells Notices. A Wells Notice is neither a formal charge of wrongdoing nor a final determination that the recipient has violated any law but is a preliminary determination by the SEC staff to recommend to the Commissioners of the SEC that a civil enforcement action or administrative proceeding be brought against the recipients. The Company and Messrs. Jia and Wang plan to engage with the SEC staff about why an enforcement action is not warranted. If the SEC determines to seek an enforcement action against the Company, Mr. Jia, and/or Mr. Wang, the SEC would need to proceed through a formal process, including formal court process for the director and officer bar, during which the Company, Mr. Jia and/or Mr. Wang, as applicable, could defend themselves. Other than disclosed herein, as of the date hereof the Company is not a party to any legal proceedings the outcome of which, if determined adversely to the Company, would individually or in the aggregate be reasonably expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition, or results of operations.

Commitments and Contingencies

The Company is, from time to time, subject to claims and disputes arising in the normal course of business. In the opinion of management, the outcome of any such claims and disputes cannot be predicted with certainty.

Legal Proceedings Against the Company

As of June 30, 2025 and December 31, 2024, the Company had accrued legal contingencies of $10.1 million and $9.1 million, respectively, recorded within Accrued expenses and other current liabilities and Accounts payable for potential financial exposure related to ongoing legal matters, primarily related to breach of contracts and employment matters, which are deemed both probable of loss and reasonably estimable.

Class and Derivative Actions

Zhou v. Faraday Future Intelligent Electric Inc. f/k/a Property Solutions Acquisition Corp. et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-009914 (U.S. District Court – Central District of California).

On December 23, 2021, a putative class action lawsuit alleging violations of the Exchange Act was filed in the United States District Court, Central District of California, against the Company and its former Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, and its then-Chief Product and User Ecosystem Officer (who was promoted to Global Co-CEO in April 2025; See Note 16 for change in Company’s governance related to Mr. Jia’s role), as well as the Co-CEOs of Property Solutions Acquisition Corp. (“PSAC”). On May 6, 2022, the appointed lead plaintiffs in the Zhou putative class action filed an amended complaint alleging violations of Sections 10(b), 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act, and related “control” person claims for secondary liability under those statutes, seeking unspecified damages. Following motion to dismiss briefing and the subsequent court-ordered dismissal of several of the plaintiffs’ claims, answers were filed and the parties agreed to participate in mediation. On April 27, 2023, the court granted the parties’ joint motion for a temporary stay pending mediation. The parties thereafter participated in a private mediation on June 29, 2023. After further discussions and negotiations, the parties reached an agreement-in-principle to settle the Zhou putative class action. Although denying all allegations, the Company nevertheless agreed to settle the Zhou putative class action for a non-reversionary cash payment of $7.5 million to be funded entirely by the Company’s insurers for the benefit of the settlement class, in exchange for the release of all claims that were or could have been asserted against the Company. The court thereafter granted preliminary approval of the settlement on November 7, 2023, and scheduled a hearing for final approval of the settlement to take place on March 18, 2024. On January 23, 2024, the ostensible lead plaintiff in the Consolidated Delaware Class Action discussed below, filed an Objection to final approval of the settlement (the “Objection”) to which the Company and the other defendants responded on March 11, 2024. On March 18, 2024, the court overruled the Objection in its entirety and entered an Order finally approving the Zhou putative class action settlement.

Farazmand v. Breitfeld et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-01570 (U.S. District Court – Central District of California).

Zhou v Breitfeld et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-01852 (U.S. District Court – Central District of California).

Moubarak v. Breitfeld et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00467 (U.S. District Court – District of Delaware).

Wang v. Breitfeld et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00525 (U.S. District Court – District of Delaware).

Wallace v. Breitfeld et al., Case No. 2023-0639-KSJM (Delaware Court of Chancery).

Ashkan Farazmand and Wangjun Zhou v. Breitfeld, et al., Case No. 2023-1283 (Delaware Court of Chancery).

On March 8 (Farazmand) and March 21 (Zhou), 2022, putative stockholder derivative lawsuits were respectively filed in the United States District Court, Central District of California and were subsequently consolidated in an action entitled In re Faraday Future Intelligent Electric Inc. Case No. 2:22-cv-1570 (the “California Federal Derivative Action”). The California Federal Derivative Action was stayed pending resolution of certain proceedings in the Zhou putative class action discussed above, which stay expired in February 2023. Plaintiffs thereafter filed a verified consolidated amended complaint on June 2, 2023, in response to which the Company and the other defendants filed a motion to dismiss. On January 22, 2024, the court granted in part, and denied in part, the motion to dismiss with leave to amend. On February 6, 2024, the parties filed a stipulation to stay the California Federal Derivative Action pending mediation that was entered by the court on February 12, 2024.

On April 11 (Moubarak) and April 25 (Wang), 2022, putative stockholder derivative lawsuits were respectively filed in the United States Delaware District Court (collectively, the “Delaware Federal Derivative Actions”). On February 6, 2023, the Delaware Derivative Actions were stayed pending resolution of the pending proceedings in the Zhou putative class action.

On June 21 (Wallace) and December 22 (Farazmand), 2023, putative derivative lawsuits were respectively filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery (collectively, the “Delaware State Derivative Actions”). The parties stipulated to a stay of the Wallace action which was entered by the court on December 29, 2023.

Each of the foregoing derivative lawsuits purported to assert claims on behalf of the Company against certain of the Company’s current and former officers and directors for alleged violations of the Exchange Act or for various common law claims based upon those officers’ and directors’ alleged breaches of their purported fiduciary duties owed to the Company and/or for their alleged aiding and abetting of those purported breaches, resulting in unspecified damages to the Company. Although the complaints filed in the foregoing lawsuits vary in detail, they are generally premised upon many of the same underlying allegations made in the Zhou putative class action. The parties to the foregoing derivative lawsuits participated in a mediation on May 13, 2024, following which they reached a settlement in principle. On July 19, 2024, the parties entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement that was filed in the California Federal Derivative Action, which incorporated all of the foregoing derivative lawsuits respectively filed in California and Delaware. On September 3, 2024, the California Federal Derivative Action Court entered an order preliminarily approving the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement (the “Preliminary Approval Order”) and provided for notice of the same to be made to Current Stockholders. On October 30, 2024, the California Federal Derivative Action Court approved the Settlement Agreement, resolving all of the foregoing derivative lawsuits. Following the approval of the Settlement Agreement, the California Federal Derivative Action was dismissed on October 30, 2024 and the Delaware Federal Derivative Actions were dismissed on November 15, 2024 (Wang) and November 19, 2024 (Moubarak). On December 31, 2024, the parties in the Farazmand filed a stipulation of dismissal which was subsequently entered by the court.

The Consolidated Delaware Class Action

On June 14, 2022, a verified stockholder class action complaint was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery against, among others, the Company, its former Global CEO and CFO, and its then-Chief Product and User Ecosystem Officer (who was promoted to Global Co-CEO in April 2025; See Note 16 for change in Company’s governance related to Mr. Jia’s role), alleging breaches of fiduciary duties (the “Yun Class Action”). On September 21, 2022, a second verified stockholder class action complaint was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery against, among others, the Company, the Global Co-CEOs and independent directors of PSAC, and certain third-party advisors to PSAC, alleging breaches of fiduciary duties, and aiding and abetting those alleged breaches, in connection with disclosures and stockholder voting leading up to the PSAC/Legacy FF merger (the “Cleveland Class Action”). The Cleveland and Yun Class Actions subsequently were consolidated the complaint in the Cleveland Class Action being designated as the operative pleading (collectively, the “Consolidated Delaware Class Action”). In April 2023, the defendants respectively filed motions to dismiss that complaint. While the defendants’ motions to dismiss were pending, the Central District of California approved the Zhou putative class action settlement. On May 24, 2024, the defendants in the Consolidated Delaware Class Action filed a motion for summary judgment based upon the court-approved settlement agreement in Zhou putative class action on the grounds that among other things, the releases of that settlement agreement barred the claims in the Consolidated Delaware Class Action. On February 10, 2025, the Delaware Court of

Chancery granted summary judgment and dismissed the Consolidated Delaware Class Action both in its entirety and with prejudice.

Additionally, on September 19, 2022, FF Global, filed a lawsuit in the Chancery Court of the State of Delaware against the Company, seeking the removal of Ms. Susan Swenson and Mr. Brian Krolicki from the Board. On September 27, 2022, the case was dismissed without prejudice pursuant to an agreement between FF Global and FF Top (the “Heads of Agreement”). Shortly following the execution of the Heads of Agreement, FF Global began making additional demands of the Company which were beyond the scope of the terms contemplated by the Heads of Agreement and pertained to, among other things, the Company’s management reporting lines and certain governance matters. On September 30, 2022, FF Global alleged that the Company was in material breach of the spirit of the Heads of Agreement. The Company believes it has complied with the applicable terms of the Heads of Agreement and disputes any characterization to the contrary. Such disputes divert management and Board resources and are costly. There can be no assurance that this or any other dispute between the Company and FF Global will not result in litigation. On October 3, 2022, Ms. Swenson and Mr. Scott Vogel, a member of the Board, tendered their resignation from the Board effective immediately. On October 3, 2022, Mr. Jordan Vogel also tendered his resignation from the Board effective on October 5, 2022. On October 28, 2022, Mr. Brian Krolicki tendered his resignation from the Board effective immediately.

Legal Proceedings Initiated by the Company

The Company has determined there to be financial exposure related to an ongoing legal matter, primarily arising from the bankruptcy of a key supplier. The exposure involves previously recorded deposits and tooling equipment, which have since become subject to legal contingency considerations due to the supplier’s insolvency.

The Company initially recorded $1.9 million in deposits and $12.9 million in tooling equipment in connection with its contractual relationship with a primary supplier. These amounts were originally recognized as a deposit paid for goods and services and tooling received, respectively, and continue to be reflected in their originally recorded accounts on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. However, following the primary supplier’s bankruptcy filing, these balances were identified as at risk, creating potential financial exposure for the Company. The $2.7 million charge consists of a $1.4 million write-off of deposits and a $1.3 million accrual for additional payments the Company expects to have to make to maintain access to its tooling located at vendors of the key supplier (the “secondary suppliers”). The $1.4 million write-off of deposits reflects the Company's estimate that recovery of that asset is not probable and leaves a remaining exposure of $0.5 million.

The Company does not expect any further financial loss related to tooling. Although the Company has title to the tooling; the secondary suppliers have possession of it. The Company anticipates establishing a direct contractual arrangement with the secondary suppliers. Once in place, these agreements are expected to provide the Company with continued access to the tooling without additional financial exposure.

Legal Action Against Tesca USA and Tesca ABC

On March 6, 2025, Faraday&Future Inc. (“Faraday”) filed a demand for arbitration against Tesca USA, Inc. and Tesca ABC, LLC alleging the breach of an Engineering Services Agreement (“ESA”) between Tesca USA and Faraday&Future Inc., under which Tesca USA was obligated to produce certain items related to automobile seating assembly and frame production. Pursuant to the ESA, Faraday paid Tesca USA approximately $36.0 million for certain parts, tooling, engineering design and development, and other items. According to a Verified Petition Regarding Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors filed in May 2024, Tesca USA, after failing to deliver any of these products or services to Faraday, assigned all its assets to Tesca ABC, a Delaware series limited liability company. Faraday has reason to suspect that Tesca USA may have made one or more large cash transfers to Tesca Group before it commenced the Assignment for Benefit of Creditors. Faraday is seeking in excess of $36.0 million in damages through this arbitration. The Company is unable to evaluate the likelihood of a favorable outcome given the early stages of these legal proceedings.

Following the completion of the Special Committee (as defined below) investigation through the date hereof, the Company and certain of its directors and officers have received numerous e-mail communications from a group of self-described “employee whistleblowers” and from various individuals and entities who represented themselves as current investors of the Company. These communications have included various allegations (including, for example, that certain directors have conspired to push the Company into bankruptcy for their own personal gain) and requests for certain organizational and

governance changes. The Company engaged an independent law firm to conduct a thorough independent external investigation with respect to these allegations. The independent investigation found that all such allegations have been without merit.

On January 30, 2023, Riverside Management Group, LLC (“Riverside”) filed a verified complaint seeking to enforce its alleged contractual right to the advancement of all reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees, it has and will incur as a named defendant in the Consolidated Delaware Class Action under its October 13, 2020 Transaction Services Agreement with the Company and Property Solutions Acquisition Sponsor, LLC (the “TSA”), pursuant to which Riverside provided PSAC with advisory services in connection with the PSAC/Legacy FF merger. In addition to seeking the advancement of such costs and expenses, Riverside also sought an award of its attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in enforcing its alleged advancement rights under the TSA, and concurrently filed a Motion for Expedited Proceedings, requesting that trial of the action be conducted on a summary basis and commence within 30 days of the motion’s disposition. The Company subsequently entered into a Stipulation and Order with Riverside under which it would conditionally advance Riverside the reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs it incurs in defense of the Consolidated Delaware Action, subject to, and in express reservation of, the Company’s right to recover all such fees and expenses following disposition of the Consolidated Delaware Class Action which, as noted above, was dismissed, with prejudice, on summary judgment by the Delaware Chancery Court.

On January 31, 2023, Raymond Handling Solutions, Inc. (“Raymond”), an equipment supplier, filed an action alleging that the Company breached its contract with Raymond and refused to pay for warehouse racking equipment. Raymond requested a judgment in its favor in the amount of $1.1 million. On April 15, 2024, the Company and Raymond executed a Settlement Agreement under which Raymond released all claims in exchange for the return the of racking equipment.

In July 2021, the Company and Palantir entered into a Master Subscription Agreement (“MSA”) setting forth the terms of the Palantir platform hosting arrangement which was expected to be used as a central operating system for data and analytics. On April 26, 2023, the Company received a letter from Palantir Technologies Inc. (“Palantir”) providing a notice of dispute alleging that the Company had not paid outstanding invoices totaling $12.3 million. On July 7, 2023, Palantir filed a Demand for Arbitration against the Company with Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, Inc., regarding the parties’ dispute under the MSA in which it alleged that the amount in controversy was $41.5 million. On August 4, 2023, the Company submitted its response to Palantir’s arbitration demand, which response included both affirmative defenses and a general denial of all allegations of Palantir’s arbitration demand. On March 11, 2024, the Company and Palantir executed a Settlement and Release Agreement terminating the MSA and resolving all of the parties’ disputes in exchange for the Company’s agreement to pay Palantir $5.0 million, with a liquidated damages clause of $0.3 million for late payments. This settlement includes mutual waivers and releases of claims to avoid future disputes. On August 9, 2024, the Company and Palantir entered into an amendment to the Settlement and Release Agreement pursuant to which, in lieu of paying the remaining $4.8 million due under the settlement agreement in cash, the parties agreed that the Company would issue, and Palantir would accept, $2.4 million of Class A Common Stock by August 9, 2024, and $2.4 million in Class A Common Stock by October 1, 2024. The August 9, 2024 issuance totaled approximately 11.1 million shares of Common Stock. The Company further agreed to register the shares under the Securities Act for resale by Palantir.

On May 2, 2023, the Company received a notice of Commencement of Arbitration by Envisage Group Developments Inc. USA (“Envisage”) for unpaid invoices relating to professional engineering services and for design and manufacture of a Master Buck cube seeking alleged damages of $1.1 million. At the arbitration hearing, the Company disputed the adequacy of Envisage’s documentation for professional services and contended that no contract exists for Master Buck due to unfulfilled payment conditions. The Company further challenged Envisage’s unilateral alteration of payment terms. In June 2024, the arbitrator issued an award to Envisage totaling $1.1 million. Envisage subsequently filed a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. Envisage was ultimately awarded a total of $1.4 million. The parties have reached an agreement to settle their dispute for $0.8 million.

On June 12, 2023, the Company received a letter demanding access to the Company’s books and records in connection with (a) the Company entering into the amended and restated shareholder agreement with FF Top Holding LLC n/k/a FF Global and (b) certain other related matters. Given the early stages of the legal proceedings, the Company is unable to evaluate the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome.

On June 13, 2023, L & W LLC (“Autokiniton”), a provider of tooling for use in the automotive industry, filed an action in State of Michigan 3rd Judicial Circuit County of Wayne Court alleging the Company breached its contract with Autokiniton and refused to fulfill its obligations under the applicable Purchase Order. Autokiniton requested a judgment in the amount of at least $8.1 million. In discovery, the Company conceded that $4.6 million was due and owing under the Purchase Order. In July 2024, the parties subsequently filed a stipulated order and judgment totaling $8.1 million, plus statutory interest, which was

entered by the court. The parties are engaged in discussions regarding this matter. In December 2024, the parties reached an agreement to settle their dispute for $3.7 million.

On October 11, 2023, Joseph Hof and Scott McPherson filed a class action lawsuit in Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York against Benchmark 237 LLC, Benchmark Real Estate Trust, SLLC, Canvas Investment Partners, LLC, Canvas Property Group, LLC, Juliet Technologies, LLC, and the Company, alleging that the defendants engaged in various scheming practices that discriminatorily impacted the plaintiffs and other class members The court granted the Company’s Motion to Dismiss on January 12, 2024, and dismissed the case on January 18, 2024. The plaintiffs filed an appeal on February 12, 2024 as to the dismissal orders, which appeal subsequently was dismissed due to the plaintiffs’ failure to timely file their appellate briefs. Although Plaintiffs have a year to file a motion to vacate the dismissal based upon a showing good cause, Plaintiff Hof recently filed a motion to seal the record and expressed the Plaintiffs’ desire to cease litigating the matter further.

On December 8, 2023, 10701 Idaho Owner, LLC (“Landlord”) notified the Company of rental defaults amounting to $0.6 million for the months of October to December 2023 and demanded a 5% late fee and 18% annual interest on allegedly overdue amounts. The parties thereafter entered into a First Amendment to the Lease Agreement dated October 19, 2023 to address the Company’s total rent default of $1.1 million, including a $0.1 million, partial payment made on January 26, 2024, and additional late fees and charges of $0.2 million. The amendment established a repayment plan requiring the Company to pay $1.2 million from February 26 to March 31, 2024, and to either replenish or provide a new $0.6 million Letter of Credit. On March 26, 2024, the Landlord served the Company with a Notice to Pay or Quit, demanding payment of $1.0 million within five business days. On April 10, 2024, the Company made a $0.2 million payment to Landlord in exchange for Landlord deferring further action.

On February 14, 2024, Rexford Industrial - 18455 Figueroa, LLC (“Rexford”) filed a Complaint for Unlawful Detainer against Faraday SPE, LLC in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. The complaint asserted that the Company has failed to pay outstanding rent in the amount of $0.9 million, and sought recovery of reasonable attorney’s fees and damages. This action is based on a breach of a Lease Agreement dated March 8, 2019, for the premises located at 18455 S. Figueroa Street, Gardena, California, and wherein Rexford is requesting forfeiture of the lease. On April 10, 2024, the court issued a Notice of Dismissal, dismissing the Complaint without prejudice.

In February 2024, the Company initiated a lawsuit against Draexlmaier Automotive Technologies of America LLC (“Draexlmaier”) for breach of contract, seeking $3.2 million in damages plus legal costs incurred. The dispute involves two Purchase Orders placed by the Company with Draexlmaier in September 2021 for the development and tooling of FF 91 vehicle consoles. The parties’ agreement included a clause allowing Faraday to terminate the Purchase Orders at any time, with the understanding that Draexlmaier would promptly refund any advanced payments for undelivered items or unperformed work. Faraday met its financial obligations under the agreement and in March 2022, terminated the agreement prior to the start of tooling fabrication and requested a refund of $3.2 million for the undelivered work, which Draexlmaier refund failed to remit. Faraday thereafter issued a final demand for this refund in August 2023, and subsequently initiated its lawsuit against Draexlmaier. In May 2024, Draexlmaier filed an Answer and Counterclaim alleging fraudulent inducement, breach of contract, violations of South Carolina’s Unfair Trade Practices Act, and unjust enrichment, and seeking $5.0 million in damages for breach of contract, as well as unspecified actual, consequential, punitive, and treble damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs. The Company disputes Draexlmaier’s claims and has stated its intention to vigorously defend the action. In June 2025, the court granted each party’s motions to dismiss with respect to the other party’s unjust enrichment claim, but otherwise denied both motions. Given the early stages of these legal proceedings, the Company is unable to evaluate the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome and/or the amount or range of potential loss.

On March 25, 2024, Cooper Standard GmbH (“Cooper Standard”) filed a lawsuit against Faraday&Future Inc. in Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, alleging the non-payment of the estimated sum of $1.5 million that was purportedly in breach of contractual obligations set forth in purchase orders, a Letter of Tool Acceptance, and invoices to facilitate the supply of automotive products and services for the FF 91 vehicle from August 2021 to December 2022. The parties have tentatively reached a settlement and are in the process of memorializing their agreement. In June 2025, the parties reached an agreement to settle their dispute for $0.8 million.

On March 27 and March 29, 2024, Jose Guerrero and Victoria Xie, the Company’s former Senior Director of Sales and Aftersales, and Go-to-Market Project Manager and Launch Manager, respectively, filed wrongful termination lawsuits against Faraday&Future Inc. and certain of its officers in Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, each of which seeks compensatory, general, and special damages in an amount not less than $1.0 million. On April 19, 2024, another former employee, Karimul Khan, submitted a request for arbitration against the same group of defendants without quantifying the

alleged damages sought. Given the early stages of these legal proceedings, the Company is unable to evaluate the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome and/or the amount or range of potential loss.

On August 9, 2024, Jeffrey D. Prol, as trustee of the Founding Future Creditors Trust, filed a lawsuit against the Company seeking to compel the production of certain books and records for inspection and requesting attorney’s fees and costs. The plaintiff is demanding inspection to allegedly value his shares of the Company. In March 2025, plaintiff agreed to dismiss the lawsuit without prejudice and a stipulation to dismiss was filed and granted.

On August 1, 2024, Yun Han, former Chief Accounting Officer and Interim Chief Financial Officer, filed an arbitration demand claiming that she is owed certain monetary amounts and restricted stock units, pursuant to various agreements with the Company and collectively, totaling approximately $1.2 million. Given the early stages of the proceedings, the Company is unable to evaluate the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome and/or the amount or range of potential loss.

In March 2025, BXP filed a lawsuit against the Company, alleging unpaid rent and a balance of approximately $1.0 million under a lease agreement signed with the Company. The parties agreed to settle their dispute for $0.4 million.

In May 2025, Costamp Group, as assignee of Vantage Cast Europe, s.r.l. (“Vantage”), filed a lawsuit against the Company, alleging the non-payment of the estimated sum of €2.8 million. Plaintiff alleges that in or about March 2022, Faraday contracted with Vantage to supply automotive component parts pursuant to Faraday's unique specifications. In or about May 2022, Vantage, in reliance on the contract with Faraday, contracted with Costamp Group (a subsidiary of Plaintiff) to supply automotive component parts to Vantage. The claim alleges that Vantage and Costamp Group fully complied with their obligations in manufacturing automotive component parts pursuant to Faraday's specifications and that Vantage sent Faraday invoices and Faraday accepted and paid for its initial orders, but has since refused to accept delivery of the specially manufactured automotive components. Given the early stages of the proceedings, the Company is unable to evaluate the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome and/or the amount or range of potential loss.

Dispute with Noteholders

In August 2023 and September 2023, the Company received correspondence from each of Senyun, MHL and V W Investment alleging that the Company had entered into oral agreements to compensate those investors for any losses in connection with converting their notes into shares of the Company in order to support the Company’s proposals at the August 2023 special stockholders meeting. The Company is unaware of any such oral agreements and is contesting these claims on multiple grounds.

Special Committee Investigation

As previously disclosed on November 15, 2021, the Board established a special committee of independent directors (“Special Committee”) to investigate allegations of inaccurate Company disclosures, including those made in an October 2021 short seller report and whistleblower allegations, which resulted in the Company being unable to timely file its third quarter 2021 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021, first quarter 2022 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q and amended Registration Statement on Form S-1 (File No. 333-258993). The Special Committee engaged outside independent legal counsel and a forensic accounting firm to assist with its review. On February 1, 2022, the Company announced that the Special Committee completed its review. On April 14, 2022, the Company announced the completion of additional investigative work based on the Special Committee’s findings which was performed under the direction of the Executive Chairperson, reporting to the Audit Committee. In connection with the Special Committee’s review and subsequent investigative work, the following findings were made:

•In connection with the Business Combination, statements made by certain Company employees to certain investors describing the role of Mr. Yueting Jia, within the Company were inaccurate and his involvement in the management of the Company post-Business Combination was more significant than what had been represented to certain investors.

•The Company’s statements leading up to the Business Combination that it had received more than 14,000 reservations for the FF 91 vehicle were potentially misleading because only several hundred of those reservations were paid, while the others (totaling 14,000) were unpaid indications of interest.

•Consistent with the Company’s previous public disclosures regarding identified material weaknesses in its internal control over financial reporting, the Company’s internal control over financial reporting required an upgrade in personnel and systems.

•The Company’s corporate culture failed to sufficiently prioritize compliance.

•Mr. Jia’s role as an intermediary in leasing certain properties which were subsequently leased to the Company was not disclosed in the Company’s corporate housing disclosures.

•In preparing the Company’s related party transaction disclosures, the Company failed to investigate and identify the sources of loans received from individuals and entities associated with Company employees.

In addition, the investigation found that certain individuals failed to fully disclose to individuals involved in the preparation of the Company’s SEC filings their relationships with certain related parties and affiliated entities in connection with, and following, the Business Combination, and failed to fully disclose relevant information, including but not limited to, information in connection with related parties and corporate governance to the Company’s former independent registered public accounting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP.

The investigation also found that certain individuals failed to cooperate and withheld potentially relevant information in connection with the Special Committee investigation. Among such individuals were non-executive officers or members of the management team of the Company, and remedial action was taken with respect to such individuals based on the extent of their non-cooperation and/or withholding of information. The failure to cooperate with the investigation was taken into consideration in connection with the remedial actions outlined below with respect to Jerry Wang, and withholding of information also affected the remedial action taken with respect to Matthias Aydt.

Based on the results of the investigation, the Special Committee concluded that, except as described above, the other substantive allegations of inaccurate Company disclosures that it evaluated, were not supported by the evidence reviewed. Although the investigation did not change any of the above findings with respect to the substantive allegations of inaccurate Company disclosures, the investigation did confirm the need for remedial actions to help ensure enhanced focus on compliance and disclosure within the Company.

Based on the results of the Special Committee investigation and subsequent investigative work described above, the Board approved the following remedial actions designed to enhance oversight and corporate governance of the Company: 

•the appointment of Susan Swenson, a former member of the Board, to the then newly created position of Executive Chairperson of the Company.

•Dr. Carsten Breitfeld, the Company’s former Global CEO, reporting directly to Ms. Swenson and receiving a 25% annual base salary reduction;

•the removal of Mr. Jia as an executive officer, who would continue in his position as Chief Product & User Ecosystem Officer of the Company. Certain dual-reporting arrangements were eliminated with respect to Mr. Jia, who also was required to report directly to Ms. Swenson, a non-independent director nominated by FF Top. Please see “Risk Factors–Risks Related to our Business and Industry–Yueting Jia and FF Global, over which Mr. Jia exercises significant influence, have control over our management, business and operations, and may use this control in ways that are not aligned with our business or financial objectives or strategies or that are otherwise inconsistent with our interests.” Mr. Jia also received a 25% annual base salary reduction, and his role was limited from a policy-making position to focusing on (a) Product and Mobility Ecosystem and (b) Internet, Artificial Intelligence, and Advanced R&D technology. On February 26, 2023, after an assessment by the Board of the Company’s management structure, the Board approved Mr. Yueting Jia (alongside Mr. Xuefeng Chen) reporting directly to the Board, as well as FF’s product, mobility ecosystem, I.A.I., and advanced R&D technology departments reporting directly to Mr. Jia. The Board also approved the Company’s user ecosystem, capital markets, human resources and administration, corporate strategy and China departments reporting to both Mr. Jia and Mr. Xuefeng in accordance with processes and controls to be determined by the Board after consultation with the Company’s management. Based on the changes to his responsibilities within the Company, the Board determined

that Mr. Jia is an “officer” of the Company within the meaning of Section 16 of the Exchange Act and an “executive officer” of the Company under Rule 3b-7 under the Exchange Act;

•On April 24, 2025, the Company announced the appointment of Mr. Yueting Jia as Global Co-Chief Executive Officer ("Global Co-CEO"), jointly leading the Company alongside Matthias Aydt, with a focus on advancing user ecosystem development, supply chain management, EV R&D, finance, legal, and China and Middle East operations;

•Matthias Aydt, then Senior Vice President, Business Development and Product Definition and a director of the Company, and currently Global Co-CEO and a director of the Company, being placed on probation as an executive officer for a six-month period, during which period he remained a non-independent member of the Board, and which probationary period has since ended;

•the appointment of Jordan Vogel as Lead Independent Director; certain changes to the composition of Board committees, including Brian Krolicki stepping down from his role as Chairman of the Board and Chair of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee and becoming a member of the Audit and Compensation Committees of the Board; Jordan Vogel stepping down from the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee; and Scott Vogel becoming the Chair of the Audit Committee and the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee of the Board;

•the suspension without pay of Jiawei (“Jerry”) Wang, the Company’s former Vice President, Global Capital Markets, who subsequently notified the Board of his decision to resign from the Company on April 10, 2022, but remained with the Company as a consultant and was subsequently appointed President of the Company on March 24, 2025;

•the assessment and enhancement of Company’s policies and procedures regarding financial accounting and reporting and the upgrading of the Company’s internal control over financial accounting and reporting, including by hiring additional financial reporting and accounting support, in each case at the direction of the Audit Committee;

•the implementation of enhanced controls around the Company’s contracting and related party transactions, including regular attestations by the Company’s employees with authority to bind the Company to contracts and related party transactions, for purposes of enabling the Company to make complete and accurate disclosures regarding related party transactions;

•the hiring of a Compliance Officer with the title of Deputy General Counsel (hired in March 2023), to report on a dotted line to the Chair of the Audit committee, and a Director of Risks and Internal Controls; and assessing and enhancing FF’s compliance policies and procedures;

•the implementation of a comprehensive training program for all directors and officers regarding, among other things, internal Company policies;

•the separation of Jarret Johnson, FF’s Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary; and

•certain other disciplinary actions and terminations of employment with respect to other Company employees (none of whom is an executive officer).

As of March 3, 2025, the Company is continuing to implement certain of the remedial actions approved by the Board. However, certain of these remedial actions are no longer in effect and no assurance can be provided that those remedial measures that continue to be implemented will be implemented in a timely manner or at all or will be successful to prevent inaccurate disclosures in the future. Please see “Risk Factors – Risks Related to our Business and Industry – We have taken remedial measures in response to the Special Committee findings, which may be unsuccessful” included in the Form 10-K. There can be no assurance that such remedial measures will be successful. In addition, there can be no assurance that such remedial measures will be fully implemented in light of the recent corporate governance agreements with FF Top and FF Global and the recent assessment by the Board of FF’s management structure, including management roles, responsibilities and reporting lines and changes to the Board.” However, pursuant to the Heads of Agreement, the Company has implemented certain governance changes that impact certain of the above-discussed remedial actions. On October 3, 2022, Ms. Swenson tendered her resignation from her role as both Executive Chairperson and member of the Board effective immediately. In addition, on October 3, 2022, Mr. Scott Vogel resigned from the Board effective immediately and Mr. Jordan Vogel resigned effective on October 5, 2022. On October 28, 2022, Mr. Brian Krolicki tendered his resignation from the Board effective immediately. On December 15, 2022, Mr. Lee Liu tendered his resignation from the Board, which resignation was effective on December 18, 2022. On December 18, 2022, Mr. Jie Sheng was appointed to the Board, effective immediately, following the resignation of Mr. Liu. On December 25, 2022, Mr. Edwin Goh tendered his resignation from the Board, which resignation was effective on December 26, 2022. On December 27, 2022, Ms. Ke Sun was appointed to the Board, effective immediately, following the resignation of Mr. Goh. Mr. Sheng and Ms. Sun are designees of FF Top pursuant to the Amended Shareholder Agreement. On December 26, 2022, Dr. Carsten Breitfeld tendered his resignation from the Board, which resignation was effective immediately. On December 27, 2022, Mr. Xuefeng Chen was appointed to the Board, effective immediately, following the resignation of Dr. Breitfeld. On January 20, 2023, Mr. Qing Ye tendered his resignation from the Board, which

resignation was effective immediately. Mr. Ye remained a consultant of the Company as an independent contractor until November 18, 2023. On January 25, 2023, Mr. Chui Tin Mok was appointed to the Board, effective immediately, following the resignation of Mr. Ye. Each of Ms. Ke Sun and Mr. Xuefeng Chen have subsequently resigned from the Board.

Subsequent to the Company announcing the completion of the Special Committee investigation on February 1, 2022, certain members of the management team and employees of the Company received a notice of preservation and subpoena from the staff of the SEC stating that the SEC had commenced a formal investigation relating to the matters that were the subject of the Special Committee investigation. The Company, which had previously voluntarily contacted the SEC in connection with the Special Committee investigation in October 2021, is cooperating fully with the SEC’s investigation. The outcome of such an investigation is difficult to predict. The Company has incurred, and may continue to incur, significant expenses related to legal and other professional services in connection with the SEC investigation. At this stage, the Company is unable to assess whether any material loss or adverse effect is reasonably possible as a result of the SEC’s investigation or to estimate the range of any potential loss. In addition, in June 2022, the Company received a preliminary request for information from the U.S. Department of Justice (the “DOJ”) in connection with the matters that were the subject of the Special Committee investigation. The Company has responded to that request and intends to fully cooperate with any future requests from the DOJ.

On June 26, 2025, the Company received a “Wells Notice” from the staff of the SEC stating that the SEC staff made a preliminary determination to recommend that the SEC file an enforcement action against the Company alleging violations of various anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities laws. The SEC staff informed the Company that the alleged violations of anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities laws pertain to purported false or misleading statements in connection with the Company’s 2021 PIPE and SPAC listing, relating to (i) related party transactions, and (ii) Mr. Jia’s role in the Company. An enforcement action may seek an injunction or cease-and-desist order against future violations of provisions of the federal securities laws, the imposition of civil monetary penalties, disgorgement or other equitable relief within the SEC’s authority, or any combination of the foregoing.

On June 27, 2025, Jiawei (Jerry) Wang, the Global President of the Company, received a Wells Notice from the SEC, and on June 30, 2025, Mr. Jia received a Wells Notice from the SEC. Each of these notices also states that the SEC staff made a preliminary determination to recommend that the SEC file an enforcement action against Mr. Wang and Mr. Jia alleging similar violations in their individual capacities of various anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities laws detailed above. An enforcement action may seek any of the above-referenced remedies, as well as a bar from serving as an officer or director of a public company. Two other former Company employees also received Wells Notices.

A Wells Notice is neither a formal charge of wrongdoing nor a final determination that the recipient has violated any law but is a preliminary determination by the SEC staff to recommend to the Commissioners of the SEC that a civil enforcement action or administrative proceeding be brought against the recipients. The Company and Messrs. Jia and Wang plan to engage with the SEC staff about why an enforcement action is not warranted. If the SEC determines to seek an enforcement action against the Company, Mr. Jia, and/or Mr. Wang, the SEC would need to proceed through a formal process, including formal court process for the director and officer bar, during which the Company, Mr. Jia and/or Mr. Wang, as applicable, could defend themselves.