Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2025
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 17 – Commitments and Contingencies *Legal Proceedings* On March 8, 2019, Jie Yuan (the “Jie Action”) filed a putative shareholder derivative lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, purportedly on behalf of the Company against its former and current CEOs and CFOs (Thanh H. Lam, Ya Ming Wong, Jeffery Chuang and Yuen Ching Ho) and directors (Charlie Huy La, Bin Liu, Umesh Patel, and Min Su) and vice president (Steven Qiang Liu) (collectively, the “Defendants”). The putative derivative plaintiffs sought to compel reimbursement of Nova for any judgment entered against the Company in the matter of Barney v. Nova Lifestyle, Inc., United States District Court for the Central District of California, and for any legal fees or other costs the Company may incur in defending the Barney Action. The basis of the claims was that the Defendants caused the Company to make alleged false and/or misleading statements that gave rise to the Barney Action. In the Barney action, the putative class plaintiffs alleged that the Company artificially inflated its share price by issuing a press release announcing a strategic relationship with Shanxi Winqing Senior Care Service Group, claiming in the Company’s Annual Statements on Form 10-Ks for the 2017 and 2018 fiscal years that Shanxi Winqing and Merlino Lewis LLP were among the Company’s largest customers, and reporting revenues from sales transactions with these entities. Plaintiffs claimed that Shanxi Winqing was a fictitious entity and Merlino Lewis LLP dissolved in 2013, so that the announcement of a strategic alliance was false and the reported revenues non-existent. The Company denied these allegations and all liability. It was also alleged in the Jie Action that President and CEO Lam engaged in self-dealing transactions by leasing real estate to Diamond Bar, a Company subsidiary. Plaintiffs further alleged in conclusory fashion that Ms. Lam, former CEO and director Ya Ming Wong, former CFO and director Yuen Ching Ho, and director Umesh Patel sold securities during the period of time when the alleged false and/or misleading statements were made “with knowledge of material non-public information.” On May 15, 2019, Wilson Samuels (the “Samuels Action”) filed a largely duplicative putative derivative complaint against the same current and former directors and officers named in the Jie Action other than Steven Qiang Liu. That action was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. In addition to repeating the allegations in the Jie Complaint, Samuels claimed that the Company’s announcement of a change of auditing firms in asserted that it did so because its existing auditor ceased auditing public companies subject to regulation in the United States without disclosing that its new auditing firm was created in a merger of three accounting firms, including a firm whose registration was revoked by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board. Samuels also claimed that the Company redeemed its stock in reliance upon the same purported fraudulent recognition of revenues claimed in the Barney Action. Samuels purported to state direct claims under Sections 10(b) and 20 of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 on the Company’s behalf. Both derivative actions were stayed pending resolution of the Barney Action. After Barney was settled (on terms previously reported), the parties filed a stipulation to lift the stay and consolidate the derivative actions. The Stipulation also set deadlines for plaintiffs to file a consolidated amended complaint and for defendants to respond to this complaint. By January 7, 2025 Orders, the Court adopted the parties’ Stipulation. On February 6, 2025, the deadline for filing an amended complaint, plaintiffs filed a Notice of Dismissal without prejudice. While plaintiffs should have sought Court approval, the Clerk accepted the Notice of Dismissal and the lead case has been marked closed. It appears that the Notice of Dismissal concluded these matters. Other than the above, the Company is not currently a party to any legal proceeding, investigation or claim which, in the opinion of the management, is likely to have a material adverse effect on the business, financial condition or results of operations.

Commitments and Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2025

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Note 17 – Commitments and Contingencies

Legal Proceedings

On March 8, 2019, Jie Yuan (the “Jie Action”) filed a putative shareholder derivative lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, purportedly on behalf of the Company against its former and current CEOs and CFOs (Thanh H. Lam, Ya Ming Wong, Jeffery Chuang and Yuen Ching Ho) and directors (Charlie Huy La, Bin Liu, Umesh Patel, and Min Su) and vice president (Steven Qiang Liu) (collectively, the “Defendants”). The putative derivative plaintiffs sought to compel reimbursement of Nova for any judgment entered against the Company in the matter of Barney v. Nova Lifestyle, Inc., United States District Court for the Central District of California, and for any legal fees or other costs the Company may incur in defending the Barney Action. The basis of the claims was that the Defendants caused the Company to make alleged false and/or misleading statements that gave rise to the Barney Action.

In the Barney action, the putative class plaintiffs alleged that the Company artificially inflated its share price by issuing a press release announcing a strategic relationship with Shanxi Winqing Senior Care Service Group, claiming in the Company’s Annual Statements on Form 10-Ks for the 2017 and 2018 fiscal years that Shanxi Winqing and Merlino Lewis LLP were among the Company’s largest customers, and reporting revenues from sales transactions with these entities. Plaintiffs claimed that Shanxi Winqing was a fictitious entity and Merlino Lewis LLP dissolved in 2013, so that the announcement of a strategic alliance was false and the reported revenues non-existent. The Company denied these allegations and all liability.

It was also alleged in the Jie Action that President and CEO Lam engaged in self-dealing transactions by leasing real estate to Diamond Bar, a Company subsidiary. Plaintiffs further alleged in conclusory fashion that Ms. Lam, former CEO and director Ya Ming Wong, former CFO and director Yuen Ching Ho, and director Umesh Patel sold securities during the period of time when the alleged false and/or misleading statements were made “with knowledge of material non-public information.”

On May 15, 2019, Wilson Samuels (the “Samuels Action”) filed a largely duplicative putative derivative complaint against the same current and former directors and officers named in the Jie Action other than Steven Qiang Liu. That action was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. In addition to repeating the allegations in the Jie Complaint, Samuels claimed that the Company’s announcement of a change of auditing firms in asserted that it did so because its existing auditor ceased auditing public companies subject to regulation in the United States without disclosing that its new auditing firm was created in a merger of three accounting firms, including a firm whose registration was revoked by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board. Samuels also claimed that the Company redeemed its stock in reliance upon the same purported fraudulent recognition of revenues claimed in the Barney Action. Samuels purported to state direct claims under Sections 10(b) and 20 of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 on the Company’s behalf.

Both derivative actions were stayed pending resolution of the Barney Action. After Barney was settled (on terms previously reported), the parties filed a stipulation to lift the stay and consolidate the derivative actions. The Stipulation also set deadlines for plaintiffs to file a consolidated amended complaint and for defendants to respond to this complaint. By January 7, 2025 Orders, the Court adopted the parties’ Stipulation.

On February 6, 2025, the deadline for filing an amended complaint, plaintiffs filed a Notice of Dismissal without prejudice. While plaintiffs should have sought Court approval, the Clerk accepted the Notice of Dismissal and the lead case has been marked closed. It appears that the Notice of Dismissal concluded these matters.

Other than the above, the Company is not currently a party to any legal proceeding, investigation or claim which, in the opinion of the management, is likely to have a material adverse effect on the business, financial condition or results of operations.