We are involved in legal and regulatory proceedings on an ongoing basis. Certain of these proceedings are in early stages and may seek an indeterminate amount of damages or penalties or may require us to change or adopt certain business practices. If we believe that a loss arising from such matters is probable and can be reasonably estimated, we accrue the estimated liability in our financial statements at that time. If only a range of estimated losses can be determined, we accrue an amount within the range that, in our judgment, reflects the most likely outcome; if none of the estimates within that range is a better estimate than any other amount, we accrue the low end of the range. For those proceedings in which an unfavorable outcome is reasonably possible but not probable, (i) we have disclosed an estimate of the reasonably possible loss or range of losses or (ii) we have concluded that our estimate of the reasonably possible loss or range of losses arising directly from the proceeding (i.e., monetary damages or amounts paid in judgment or settlement) is not material. If we cannot estimate the probable or reasonably possible loss or range of losses arising from a legal proceeding, we have disclosed that fact. In assessing the materiality of a legal proceeding, we evaluate, among other factors, the amount of monetary damages claimed, as well as the potential impact of non-monetary remedies sought by plaintiffs (e.g., injunctive relief) that may require us to change our business practices in a manner that could have a material adverse impact on our business. With respect to the matters disclosed in this Note 13, we are unable to estimate the possible loss or range of losses that could potentially result from the application of such non-monetary remedies.

Amounts accrued for legal and regulatory proceedings for which we believe a loss is probable and reasonably estimable were not material as of March 31, 2026. Except as otherwise noted for the proceedings described in this Note 13, we have concluded, based on currently available information, that reasonably possible losses arising directly from the proceedings (i.e., monetary damages or amounts paid in judgment or settlement) in excess of our recorded accruals are also not material. Determining legal reserves or possible losses from such matters involves judgment and may not reflect the full range of uncertainties and unpredictable outcomes. We may be exposed to losses in excess of the amount recorded, and such amounts could be material. If any of our estimates and assumptions change or prove to have been incorrect, it could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

In February 2022, we received a Civil Investigative Demand (“CID”) from the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) related to PayPal’s practices relating to commercial customers that submit charges on behalf of other merchants or sellers, and related activities. In August 2025, we received an additional CID investigating whether deceptive schemes and other unlawful activities by merchants using PayPal’s platform were facilitated or furthered by the Company’s onboarding, due diligence, and other practices. The CIDs request the production of documents and answers to written questions, as well as other information. We are cooperating with the FTC in connection with these CIDs.

On October 4, 2022, a putative securities class action captioned Defined Benefit Plan of the Mid-Jersey Trucking Industry and Teamsters Local 701 Pension and Annuity Fund v. PayPal Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 22-cv-5864, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. On January 11, 2023, the Court appointed Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec as lead plaintiff and renamed the action In re PayPal Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation (“PPH Securities Action”). On March 13, 2023, the lead plaintiff filed an amended and consolidated complaint. The PPH Securities Action asserts claims relating to our public statements with respect to net new active accounts (“NNA”) results and guidance, and the detection of illegitimately created accounts. The PPH Securities Action purports to be brought on behalf of purchasers of the Company’s stock between February 3, 2021 and February 1, 2022 (the “Class Period”), and asserts claims for alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act against the Company, as well as its former Chief Executive Officer, former Chief Strategy, Growth and Data Officer, and former Chief Financial Officer (collectively, the “Individual Defendants,” and together with the Company, “Defendants”), and for alleged violations of Sections 20(a) and 20A of the Exchange Act against the Individual Defendants. The complaint alleges that certain public statements made by Defendants during the Class Period were rendered materially false and misleading (which, allegedly, caused the Company’s stock to trade at artificially inflated prices) by the Defendants’ failure to disclose that, among other things, the Company’s incentive campaigns were susceptible to fraud and led to the creation of illegitimate accounts, which allegedly affected the Company’s NNA results and guidance. The PPH Securities Action seeks unspecified compensatory damages on behalf of the putative class members. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the PPH Securities Action. On January 29, 2025, the Court dismissed all of the claims without prejudice. On March 17, 2025, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint. On March 31, 2026, the Court dismissed all of the claims with prejudice. On April 30, 2026, the plaintiffs filed an appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

On November 2, 2022, a putative shareholder derivative action captioned Shah v. Daniel Schulman, et al., Case No. 22-cv-1445, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (the “Shah Action”), purportedly on behalf of the Company. On April 4, 2023, a putative shareholder derivative action captioned Nelson v. Daniel Schulman, et. al., Case No. 23-cv-01913, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (the “Nelson Action”) purportedly on behalf of the Company. On January 31, 2025, a putative shareholder derivative action captioned Spathias v. Daniel Schulman, et al., Case No. 25-cv-1007, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (the “Spathias Action,” and collectively, the “Derivative Actions”). The Derivative Actions are based on the same alleged facts and circumstances as the PPH Securities Action, and name certain of our officers, including our former Chief Executive Officer and former Chief Financial Officer, and members of our Board of Directors, as defendants. The Derivative Actions allege claims for breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, waste of corporate assets, gross mismanagement and violations of the Exchange Act, and seek to recover damages on behalf of the Company. The Derivative Actions have been stayed pending further developments in the PPH Securities Action.

On February 24, 2026, a putative securities class action captioned Darcy v. PayPal Holdings, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:26-cv-01589-JSC, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (the “Darcy Securities Action”). The Darcy Securities Action purports to be brought on behalf of purchasers of the Company’s stock between February 25, 2025 and February 2, 2026 (the “Darcy Class Period”), and asserts claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and certain of its current and former officers. The complaint alleges that certain public statements made by the Company during the Darcy Class Period were rendered materially false and misleading (which, allegedly, caused the Company’s stock to trade at artificially inflated prices) by the defendants’ failure to disclose impediments to its branded checkout growth strategy that impaired the Company’s ability to meet its 2027 financial targets. The Darcy Securities Action seeks unspecified compensatory damages on behalf of the putative class members.

On March 11, 2026, a putative shareholder derivative action captioned Goncalves v. Chriss et al., Case No. 5:26-cv-02145-SVK, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (the “Goncalves Action”), purportedly on behalf of the Company. The Goncalves Action is based on the same alleged facts and circumstances as the Darcy Securities Action. The Goncalves Action names certain of our current and former officers, as well as members of our Board of Directors, as defendants. The Goncalves Action alleges claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, contribution, and violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and seeks, on behalf of the Company, an award of damages and an order directing the Company to reform its corporate governance and internal procedures.

On April 2, 2026, a putative securities class action captioned Norfolk County Retirement System v. PayPal Holdings, Inc. et al., Case No. 5:26-cv-02849-VKD, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (the “Norfolk Securities Action”). The Norfolk Securities Action generally asserts the same claims and allegations made in the Darcy Securities Action, but expands the Darcy Class Period to February 8, 2024 to February 2, 2026 and includes additional alleged misstatements from the earlier time period. The Norfolk Securities Action seeks unspecified compensatory damages on behalf of the putative class members.

Other third parties have from time to time claimed, and others may claim in the future, that we have infringed their intellectual property rights. We are subject to patent disputes and expect that we will increasingly be subject to additional patent infringement claims involving various aspects of our business as our products and services continue to expand in scope and complexity. Such claims may be brought directly or indirectly against our companies and/or against our customers (who may be entitled to contractual indemnification under their contracts with us), and we are subject to increased exposure to such claims as a result of our acquisitions, particularly in cases where we are introducing new products or services in connection with such acquisitions. We have in the past been forced to litigate such claims, and we believe that additional lawsuits alleging such claims will be filed against us. Intellectual property claims, whether meritorious or not, are time-consuming and costly to defend and resolve, could require expensive changes in our methods of doing business, or could require us to enter into costly royalty or licensing agreements on unfavorable terms or make substantial payments to settle claims or to satisfy damages awarded by courts.

From time to time, we are involved in other disputes or regulatory inquiries that arise in the ordinary course of business, including suits by our consumers (individually or as class actions), merchants or regulators alleging, among other things, improper disclosure of our prices, rules, or policies, that our practices, prices, rules, policies, or user, product, business or merchant agreements violate applicable law, or that we have acted unfairly or not acted in conformity with such prices, rules, policies, or agreements. In addition to these types of disputes and regulatory inquiries, our operations are also subject to regulatory and legal review and challenges that may reflect the increasing global regulatory focus and scrutiny to which the payments industry is subject and, when taken together with other regulatory and legislative action, such actions could result in the imposition of costly new compliance burdens on our business and customers and may lead to increased costs and decreased transaction volume and revenue. Further, the number and significance of these disputes and inquiries are increasing as our business has grown and expanded in scale and scope, including the number of active accounts and payment transactions on our platform, the range and increasing complexity of the products and services that we offer, and our geographical operations. Any claims or regulatory actions against us, whether meritorious or not, could be time consuming, result in costly litigation, settlement payments, damage awards (including statutory damages for certain causes of action in certain jurisdictions), fines, penalties, injunctive relief, or increased costs of doing business through adverse judgment or settlement, require us to change our products, services, or business practices in expensive ways, require significant amounts of management time, result in the diversion of significant operational resources, or otherwise harm our business.

Our agreements with eBay governing our separation from eBay provide for specific indemnity and liability obligations for both eBay and us. Disputes between eBay and us have arisen and others may arise in the future, and an adverse outcome in such matters could materially and adversely impact our business, results of operations, and financial condition. In addition, the indemnity rights we have against eBay under the agreements may not be sufficient to protect us, and our indemnity obligations to eBay may be significant.

In the ordinary course of business, we include indemnification provisions in certain of our agreements with parties with whom we have commercial relationships. Under these contracts, we generally indemnify, hold harmless, and agree to reimburse the indemnified party for losses suffered or incurred by the indemnified party in connection with claims by any third party with respect to our domain names, trademarks, logos, and other branding elements to the extent that such marks are related to the subject agreement. These indemnification provisions generally include indemnity for other types of third-party claims, which may be related to intellectual property rights, confidentiality, willful misconduct, data privacy obligations, and certain breach of contract claims, among others. These indemnification provisions generally also include indemnity to our payments processors arising out of conduct by us or our customers, including in the event of card association fines or other damages incurred by the processor. It is not possible to determine the maximum potential loss under these indemnification provisions due to our limited history of prior indemnification claims and the unique facts and circumstances involved in each particular situation.

PayPal has participated in the U.S. Government’s Paycheck Protection Program administered by the U.S. Small Business Administration. Loans made under this program were funded by an independent chartered financial institution that we partnered with. We received a fee for providing services in connection with these loans and retained operational and audit risk related to those activities. We have agreed, under certain circumstances, to indemnify the chartered financial institution and its assignee of a portion of these loans in connection with the services provided for loans made under this program.

As part of the agreements to sell certain loans receivable portfolios, in certain circumstances such as breaches in loan warranties, we may be required to indemnify the third-party investors that purchased the loans or repurchase the loans. The estimate of the maximum potential amount of future payments we may be required to make is equal to the current outstanding balances of the loans sold; however, the maximum potential amount of the indemnification is not, in our view, representative of the expected future exposure. As of March 31, 2026 and December 31, 2025, the current outstanding balances of the loans sold was $3.4 billion and $3.8 billion, respectively. The term of the indemnification obligations align to the maturities of the loans sold.

In addition to the protections afforded by applicable law, we provide consumers and merchants with protection programs for certain purchase transactions completed on our payments platform. Our protection programs help protect both consumers and merchants from financial loss resulting from, among other things, counterparty non-performance. These programs are designed to promote confidence on the part of both consumers, who will be reimbursed in certain circumstances, such as not receiving their purchased eligible item in the condition significantly as described, as well as merchants, who will receive payment in certain circumstances, such as establishing proof of shipment or delivery of an eligible item to the customer. These protection programs are considered assurance-type warranties under applicable accounting standards for which we estimate associated costs within the allowance for transaction losses. Our protection programs may result in negative customer balances when there are insufficient funds in a customer’s PayPal account to cover charges applied for merchant-related chargebacks within the scope of our protection programs. Negative customer balances can also occur from bank returns and reversals due to insufficient funding sources. The allowance for negative customer balances represents our estimate of current expected credit losses on negative customer balances.