Litigation	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2026
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Litigation	We are involved in various legal proceedings, including those discussed below. We record an accrual for legal contingencies when it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount or range of the loss can be reasonably estimated (although, as discussed below, there may be an exposure to loss in excess of the accrued liability). We evaluate our accruals for legal contingencies at least quarterly and, as appropriate, establish new accruals or adjust existing accruals to reflect (1) the facts and circumstances known to us at the time, including information regarding negotiations, settlements, rulings and other relevant events and developments, (2) the advice and analyses of counsel and (3) the assumptions and judgment of management. Legal costs associated with our legal proceedings are expensed as incurred. We had accrued liabilities of $55 million and $144 million for all of our legal matters that were contingencies as of March 31, 2026 and December 31, 2025, respectively. Substantially all of our legal contingencies are subject to significant uncertainties and, therefore, determining the likelihood of a loss and/or the measurement of any loss involves a series of complex judgments about future events. Consequently, the ultimate outcomes of our legal contingencies could result in losses in excess of amounts we have accrued. We may be unable to estimate a range of possible losses for some matters pending against us or our subsidiaries, even when the amount of damages claimed against us or our subsidiaries is stated because, among other things: (1) the claimed amount may be exaggerated or unsupported; (2) the claim may be based on a novel legal theory or involve a large number of parties; (3) there may be uncertainty as to the likelihood of a class being certified or the ultimate size of the class; (4) there may be uncertainty as to the outcome of pending appeals or motions; (5) the matter may not have progressed sufficiently through discovery or there may be significant factual or legal issues to be resolved or developed; and/or (6) there may be uncertainty as to the enforceability of legal judgments and outcomes in certain jurisdictions. Other matters have progressed sufficiently that we are able to estimate a range of possible loss. For those legal contingencies disclosed below, and those related to the previously disclosed settlement agreement entered into in February 2015 with SNAI S.p.a. (“SNAI”), as to which a loss is reasonably possible, whether in excess of a related accrued liability or where there is no accrued liability, and for which we are able to estimate a range of possible loss, the current estimated range is up to approximately $14 million in excess of the accrued liabilities (if any) related to those legal contingencies. This aggregate range represents management’s estimate of additional possible loss in excess of the accrued liabilities (if any) with respect to these matters based on currently available information, including any damages claimed by the plaintiffs, and is subject to significant judgment and a variety of assumptions and inherent uncertainties. For example, at the time of making an estimate, management may have only preliminary, incomplete, or inaccurate information about the facts underlying a claim; its assumptions about the future rulings of the court or other tribunal on significant issues, or the behavior and incentives of adverse parties, regulators, indemnitors or co‑defendants, may prove to be wrong; and the outcomes it is attempting to predict are often not amenable to the use of statistical or other quantitative analytical tools. In addition, from time to time an outcome may occur that management had not accounted for in its estimate because it had considered that outcome to be remote. Furthermore, as noted above, the aggregate range does not include any matters for which we are not able to estimate a range of possible loss. Accordingly, the estimated aggregate range of possible loss does not represent our maximum loss exposure. Any such losses could have a material adverse impact on our results of operations, cash flows or financial condition. The legal proceedings underlying the estimated range will change from time to time, and actual results may vary significantly from the current estimate. Colombia Litigation Our subsidiary, LNWI, owned a minority interest in Wintech de Colombia S.A., or Wintech (now liquidated), which formerly operated the Colombian national lottery under a contract with Empresa Colombiana de Recursos para la Salud, S.A. (together with its successors, “Ecosalud”), an agency of the Colombian government. The contract provided for a penalty against Wintech, LNWI and the other shareholders of Wintech of up to $5 million if certain levels of lottery sales were not achieved. In addition, LNWI delivered to Ecosalud a $4 million surety bond as a further guarantee of performance under the contract. Wintech started the instant lottery in Colombia but, due to difficulties beyond its control, including, among other factors, social and political unrest in Colombia, frequently interrupted telephone service and power outages, and competition from another lottery being operated in a province of Colombia that we believe was in violation of Wintech’s exclusive license from Ecosalud, the projected sales level was not met for the year ended June 30, 1993. In 1993, Ecosalud issued a resolution declaring that the contract was in default. In 1994, Ecosalud issued a liquidation resolution asserting claims for compensation and damages against Wintech, LNWI and other shareholders of Wintech for, among other things, realization of the full amount of the penalty, plus interest, and the amount of the bond. LNWI filed separate actions opposing each resolution with the Tribunal Contencioso of Cundinamarca in Colombia (the “Tribunal”), which upheld both resolutions. LNWI appealed each decision to the Council of State. In May 2012, the Council of State upheld the contract default resolution, which decision was notified to us in August 2012. In October 2013, the Council of State upheld the liquidation resolution, which decision was notified to us in December 2013. In July 1996, Ecosalud filed a lawsuit against LNWI in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia asserting many of the same claims asserted in the Colombia proceedings, including breach of contract, and seeking damages. In March 1997, the District Court dismissed Ecosalud’s claims. Ecosalud appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s decision in 1998. In June 1999, Ecosalud filed a collection proceeding against LNWI to enforce the liquidation resolution and recover the claimed damages. In May 2013, the Tribunal denied LNWI’s merit defenses to the collection proceeding and issued an order of payment of approximately 90 billion Colombian pesos, or approximately $30 million, plus default interest (potentially accrued since 1994 at a 12% statutory interest rate). LNWI filed an appeal to the Council of State, and on December 10, 2020, the Council of State issued a ruling affirming the Tribunal’s decision. On December 16, 2020, LNWI filed a motion for clarification of the Council of State’s ruling, which was denied on April 15, 2021. On April 22, 2021, LNWI filed a motion for reconsideration relating to that decision, which the Council of State denied on February 21, 2022. On May 24, 2022, the case was transferred from the Council of State to the Tribunal for further proceedings. On August 18, 2022, LNWI filed a constitutional challenge to the Council of State’s December 10, 2020 decision with that court, which was denied on October 7, 2022. On December 7, 2022, LNWI filed an appeal with the Council of State from the denial of the constitutional challenge, which was denied on May 24, 2023. On June 28, 2023, the Colombian Constitutional Court received the record of the constitutional appeal for further consideration, and on September 26, 2023, that court selected LNWI’s constitutional appeal for further consideration. On April 25, 2024, LNWI was notified that, by means of a decision dated April 5, 2024, a three-judge panel of the Colombian Constitutional Court denied LNWI’s constitutional appeal. On April 30, 2024, LNWI filed a motion to have that panel ruling declared null and void by the full Chamber of the Colombian Constitutional Court. On November 7, 2024, LNWI was notified that, by means of a decision dated August 8, 2024, the full Chamber of the Colombian Constitutional Court denied LNWI’s motion filed on April 30, 2024. The matter has been remanded to the Tribunal for further proceedings, and on April 30, 2025, the Tribunal issued an order directing the parties to comply with the December 10, 2020 decision of the Council of State. The matter remains pending before the Tribunal. LNWI believes it has various defenses, including on the merits, against Ecosalud’s claims. Although we believe these claims will not result in a material adverse effect on our consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial position, it is not feasible to predict the final outcome, and we cannot assure that these claims will not ultimately be resolved adversely to us or result in material liability. SNAI Litigation On April 16, 2012, certain VLTs operated by SNAI in Italy and supplied by Barcrest Group Limited (“Barcrest”) erroneously printed what appeared to be winning jackpot and other tickets with a face amount in excess of €400.0 million. SNAI has stated, and system data confirms, that no jackpots were actually won on that day. The terminals were deactivated by the Italian regulatory authority. Following the incident, we understand that the Italian regulatory authority revoked the certification of the version of the gaming system that Barcrest provided to SNAI and fined SNAI €1.5 million, but determined to not revoke SNAI’s concession to operate VLTs in Italy. In October 2012, SNAI filed a lawsuit in the Court of First Instance of Rome in Italy against Barcrest and The Global Draw Limited, our subsidiary which acquired Barcrest from IGT‑UK Group Limited, a subsidiary of IGT, claiming liability arising out of the April 2012 incident and asserting claims based on theories of breach of contract and tort. The lawsuit sought to terminate SNAI’s agreement with Barcrest and damages arising from the deactivation of the terminals, including among other things, lost profits, expenses and costs, potential awards to players who have sought to enforce what appeared to be winning jackpot and other tickets, compensation for lost profits sought by managers of the gaming locations where SNAI VLTs supplied by Barcrest were installed, damages to commercial reputation and any future damages arising from SNAI’s potential loss of its concession or inability to obtain a new concession. In February 2015, we entered into a settlement agreement with SNAI that provides, among other things, for us to make a €25.0 million upfront payment to SNAI, which payment was made in February 2015, and to indemnify SNAI against certain potential future losses. In connection with the settlement, the parties’ pending claims in the Court of First Instance of Rome were dismissed on February 19, 2015. To date, we have paid €9.4 million to SNAI pursuant to our indemnification obligations. In re Automatic Card Shufflers Litigation Matter On April 2, 2021, Casino Queen, Inc. and Casino Queen Marquette, Inc. filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against L&W, Bally Technologies, Inc. and LNW Gaming, Inc., f/k/a Bally Gaming, Inc. In the complaint, the plaintiffs assert federal antitrust claims arising from the defendants’ procurement of particular U.S. patents. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants used those patents to create an allegedly illegal monopoly in the market for automatic card shufflers sold or leased in the United States. The plaintiffs seek to represent a putative class of all persons and entities that directly purchased or leased automatic card shufflers within the United States from the defendants, or any predecessor, subsidiary, or affiliate thereof, at any time between April 1, 2009, and the present. The complaint seeks unspecified money damages, which the complaint asks the court to treble, the award of plaintiffs’ costs of suit, including attorneys’ fees, and the award of pre-judgment and post-judgment interest. On June 11, 2021, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint, which the court denied on May 19, 2022. Discovery closed on December 1, 2023. On February 16, 2024, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, and plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment and a motion for class certification. On May 8, 2025, the court held a hearing on the pending motions for summary judgment. On March 31, 2026, the court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion for summary judgment; denied plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment; and granted plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. Due to the complexity of the plaintiffs’ claims, and the unpredictability of the outcome of the proceedings in the district court, or any appeal therefrom, we are unable at this time to estimate a range of reasonably possible losses, or any amount within such a range, above the amount we have recorded for this matter, which is the minimum amount of reasonably possible loss. We believe that the claims are without merit, and intend to vigorously defend against them. Mohawk Gaming Enterprises Matter On November 9, 2020, Mohawk Gaming Enterprises LLC, d/b/a Akwesasne Mohawk Casino Resort, filed a demand for a putative class arbitration before the American Arbitration Association against L&W, Bally Technologies, Inc. and LNW Gaming, Inc., f/k/a Bally Gaming, Inc. (“Respondents”). In the complaint, the claimant asserts federal antitrust claims arising from the respondents’ procurement of particular U.S. patents. The claimant alleges that the respondents used those patents to create an allegedly illegal monopoly in the market for automatic card shufflers sold or leased in the United States. The claimant seeks to represent a putative class of all persons and entities that directly purchased or leased automatic card shufflers within the United States from the respondents, or any predecessor, subsidiary, or affiliate thereof, at any time between April 1, 2009, and the present. The complaint seeks unspecified money damages, which the complaint asks the arbitration panel to treble, and the award of claimant’s costs of suit, including attorneys’ fees. Respondents filed their answering statement on December 9, 2020. On October 29, 2021, the claimant filed a memorandum in support of class arbitration, which Respondents opposed on December 3, 2021. On February 8, 2022, the Arbitrator issued a clause construction award, finding that the arbitration could proceed on behalf of a class or classes. On February 11, 2022, Respondents filed a petition to vacate the award in the New York Supreme Court. The Court denied Respondents’ petition on August 9, 2022, and on August 16, 2022, Respondents appealed to the New York Appellate Division, First Department, which denied Respondents’ appeal on June 22, 2023. On April 15, 2022, Respondents filed a motion to dismiss the claimant’s complaint, which the Arbitrator denied on July 26, 2022. Discovery closed on December 1, 2023. On February 16, 2024, the respondents filed a motion for summary judgment. Also on February 16, 2024, claimant filed a motion for partial summary judgment and a motion for class certification. On December 9, 2024, the Arbitrator denied the motions for summary judgment and issued a class determination award, certifying a class. On January 9, 2025, Respondents filed a petition to vacate the award in New York Supreme Court. The Court denied Respondents’ petition and granted Claimant’s cross-petition to confirm the award on July 2, 2025, and on July 7, 2025, Respondents appealed to the New York Appellate Division, First Department. On November 14, 2025, the Arbitrator entered a scheduling order setting the evidentiary hearing in this matter for April 15 to 30 and May 6 to 13, 2026. On March 19, 2026, the Arbitrator entered an order postponing the evidentiary hearing pending future developments relating to Respondents’ pending appeal of the Arbitrator’s class determination award. Due to the complexity of the plaintiffs’ claims, and the unpredictability of the outcome of the proceedings before the Arbitrator, or any appeal therefrom, we are unable at this time to estimate a range of reasonably possible losses, or any amount within such a range, above the amount we have recorded for this matter, which is the minimum amount of reasonably possible loss. We believe that the claims in the arbitration demand are without merit, and intend to vigorously defend against them. De Guzman Matter On January 13, 2026, plaintiff Mark De Guzman filed a putative class action complaint against Sciplay Corporation and SciPlay Games, LLC in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint asserts claims for alleged violations under California’s Unfair Competition Law, California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and California’s Penal Code, and for unjust enrichment. The plaintiff seeks to represent a putative class of California residents who spent money playing SciPlay’s online social casino games during the four years preceding the filing of plaintiff’s complaint. Plaintiff’s complaint seeks an order certifying the proposed class, and further seeks unspecified money damages, rescission, restitution, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief, the award of interest, expenses, costs, and plaintiff’s reasonable attorney’s fees, and unspecified other equitable relief. On March 23, 2026, defendants filed a motion to compel arbitration of plaintiff’s claims and to stay plaintiff’s lawsuit pending resolution of the arbitration. On April 23, 2026, the district court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of plaintiff’s claims, and stayed and administratively closed plaintiff’s lawsuit pending resolution of the arbitration proceedings. We are currently unable to determine the likelihood of an outcome or estimate a range of possible losses, if any. We believe that the claims in the complaint are without merit, and intend to vigorously defend against them. Herman Matter On January 15, 2026, plaintiff Sean Herman filed a putative class action complaint against SciPlay Corporation and SciPlay Games, LLC in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. The complaint asserts claims for alleged violations of Washington State’s anti-gambling statutes and Washington State’s Consumer Protection Act. The plaintiff seeks to represent a putative class of Washington State residents who spent money playing SciPlay’s online social casino games during the three years preceding the filing of plaintiff’s complaint. Plaintiff’s complaint seeks an order certifying the proposed class, and further seeks unspecified money damages, rescission, restitution, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief, the award of interest, expenses, costs, and plaintiff’s reasonable attorneys’ fees, and unspecified other equitable relief. On March 30, 2026, defendants filed a motion to compel arbitration of plaintiff’s claims and to stay plaintiff’s lawsuit pending resolution of the arbitration. On April 29, 2026, plaintiff filed a Notice of Non-Opposition to defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, stating that plaintiff agrees the case should be stayed while the parties arbitrate their dispute. We are currently unable to determine the likelihood of an outcome or estimate a range of reasonably possible losses, if any. We believe that the claims in the complaint are without merit, and intend to vigorously defend against them. Aristocrat Matter (United States) On February 26, 2024, Aristocrat Technologies, Inc. and Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Limited brought a civil action in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada against L&W, LNW Gaming, Inc. and SciPlay Corporation. Plaintiffs assert claims for trade secret misappropriation, copyright infringement, trade dress infringement and unfair competition, and deceptive trade practices, relating to defendants’ DRAGON TRAINTM and JEWEL OF THE DRAGON® games. Plaintiffs’ operative complaint sought preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, unspecified damages, the award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and declaratory relief. Simultaneously with the filing of the complaint on February 26, 2024, the plaintiffs filed a motion to expedite discovery, which the court granted in part and denied in part on March 26, 2024. On April 9, 2024, defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint, which the court granted in part and denied in part on June 24, 2024. On May 22, 2024, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, which the district court granted on September 23, 2024. On July 15, 2024, the plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint, which defendants answered on August 12, 2024. On November 21, 2024, the plaintiffs filed a motion to enforce the district court’s preliminary injunction, which the court denied on January 3, 2025. On March 14, 2025, the plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint, which defendants answered on April 11, 2025. On July 15, 2025, the plaintiffs filed a motion to extend the current pretrial deadlines, which the court granted on October 2, 2025. On July 17, 2025, the parties jointly filed a proposed stipulated order regarding the court’s preliminary injunction entered in September 2024. On October 17, 2025, the court granted plaintiffs’ renewed motion to obtain discovery of math models for certain Light & Wonder hold and spin games released since 2021. On December 11, 2025, the parties filed a stipulated motion to extend the current pretrial deadlines, which the court granted on December 16, 2025. On January 12, 2026, the parties jointly filed a motion to stay the action until March 12, 2026, in view of a settlement reached by the parties. On January 12, 2026, the court entered an order directing the parties to file, by March 12, 2026, either documents to dismiss the action or a joint status report informing the court of the status of the settlement. On February 20, 2026, the parties jointly filed a stipulation to vacate the district court’s preliminary injunction and to dismiss the action. On February 27, 2026, the court granted the parties’ request: it vacated the preliminary injunction, dismissed the action, and closed the case. Aristocrat Matter (Australia) On October 4, 2024, Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Limited brought a civil action in the Federal Court of Australia against L&W and LNW Gaming ANZ Pty Ltd., among other defendants. Plaintiff asserts claims for breach of confidence, breach of contract (against other defendants) and inducing breach of contract, breaches of the Australian Consumer Law, and copyright infringement relating to defendants’ Dragon Train games, and breach of confidence relating to defendants’ Jewel of the Dragon games. Plaintiff’s complaint sought preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, unspecified damages or an account of profits, and the award of costs. On October 4, 2024, the plaintiff filed a motion for an interlocutory injunction, which it amended on November 12, 2024. On February 3, 2025, L&W and LNW Gaming ANZ Pty Ltd. filed a defense to plaintiff’s complaint. On February 6, 2025, the court denied plaintiff’s motion for interlocutory injunction. On May 26, 2025, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, and on June 3, 2025, L&W and LNW Gaming ANZ Pty Ltd. filed a defense to plaintiff’s amended complaint. On July 7, 2025, the court entered an order directing that evidence in the proceeding is to be heard by the court in two tranches, with final orders being made after a hearing on the second tranche of evidence. The trial relating to the first tranche of evidence is provisionally scheduled for June 29, 2026 through July 17, 2026. On January 12, 2026, the plaintiff, L&W and LNW Gaming ANZ Pty Ltd. jointly notified the court that they had reached a settlement between them. Under the terms of the agreement, Light & Wonder consented to an approximately $128 million payment to conclude the matters at issue, and the plaintiff, L&W and LNW Gaming ANZ Pty Ltd. promised to provide further updates relating to the settlement on or before March 11, 2026. On March 11, 2026, the court entered an order vacating all cost orders as between Aristocrat and L&W and LNW Gaming ANZ Pty Ltd., and dismissing plaintiff’s claims against L&W and LNW Gaming ANZ Pty. Ltd. Evolution Matter On May 28, 2024, Evolution Malta Limited, Evolution Gaming Malta Limited, and SIA Evolution Latvia brought a civil action in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada against L&W and LNW Gaming, Inc. Plaintiffs assert claims for patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation relating to defendants’ ROULETTEX® and POWERX® games and defendants’ 88 Fortunes Blaze Live Roulette game. Plaintiffs’ complaint seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, unspecified damages, the award of attorneys’ fees and costs, interest, and declaratory relief. On July 24, 2024, defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint, which the court granted as to plaintiffs’ claims for patent infringement on February 11, 2025. On August 16, 2024, defendants filed a motion to stay discovery, which the court denied on November 7, 2024. On February 7, 2025, defendants filed a motion to compel arbitration of plaintiffs’ claims for trade secret misappropriation, or, in the alternative, to dismiss the claims. On September 30, 2025, the court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of plaintiffs’ claims for trade secret misappropriation and stayed those claims. On April 10, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint and on May 15, 2025, defendants filed a motion to dismiss that First Amended Complaint, which the court denied as moot on September 30, 2025. Also on April 10, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint, which the court granted on June 30, 2025. Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint on June 30, 2025, and defendants filed a motion to dismiss the claims for patent infringement in that complaint on August 8, 2025. Also on August 8, 2025, the parties filed a joint stipulation to stay all discovery until and through January 16, 2026, which the court granted on August 11, 2025. On February 2, 2026, defendants filed a motion to stay all discovery pending the court’s ruling on defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint, and the resolution of pending Inter Partes Review proceedings involving the majority of the patents asserted in the action, which the court denied as moot on March 31, 2026. On February 3, 2026, the court entered a scheduling order setting certain pretrial deadlines, including a fact discovery deadline of October 27, 2026. On March 30, 2026, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the claims for patent infringement. We are currently unable to determine the likelihood of an outcome or estimate a range of reasonably possible losses, if any. We believe that the claims in the dispute are without merit and intend to vigorously defend against them. On November 12, 2025, Evolution Malta Limited, Evolution Gaming Malta Limited, and SIA Evolution Latvia filed a request for arbitration directed against L&W and LNW Gaming, Inc. with the International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (“ICC”). Claimants’ request for arbitration asserts those claims for trade secret misappropriation that the Nevada court, in its order of September 30, 2025, directed be arbitrated. On February 2, 2026, respondents filed an answer to claimants’ request for arbitration. On February 27, 2026, the ICC confirmed the constitution of an Arbitral Tribunal over claimants’ claims, consisting of three arbitrators. We are currently unable to determine the likelihood of an outcome or estimate a range of reasonably possible losses, if any. We believe that the claims in the dispute are without merit and intend to vigorously defend against them. AztecGold Holdings Pty Ltd. Matter (Australia) On April 22, 2026, AztecGold Holdings Pty Ltd. brought a shareholder class action in the Commercial Court of the Supreme Court of Victoria, Australia against L&W. Plaintiff asserts claims for breaches of the Australian Corporations Act, the Australian Securities and Investment Commission Act 2001, and the Australian Consumer Law, relating to representations provided by L&W regarding its Dragon Train game. The lawsuit is brought on behalf of shareholders who acquired an interest in Light & Wonder CHESS Depositary Interests (CDIs) between May 22, 2023 and September 24, 2024. Plaintiff’s complaint seeks declaratory relief, unspecified damages, and the award of interest and costs. L&W’s responsive pleading to Plaintiff’s lawsuit is not yet due. We are currently unable to determine the likelihood of an outcome or estimate a range of reasonably possible losses, if any. We believe that the Plaintiff’s claims are without merit and intend to vigorously defend against them.

We are involved in various legal proceedings, including those discussed below. We record an accrual for legal contingencies when it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount or range of the loss can be reasonably estimated (although, as discussed below, there may be an exposure to loss in excess of the accrued liability). We evaluate our accruals for legal contingencies at least quarterly and, as appropriate, establish new accruals or adjust existing accruals to reflect (1) the facts and circumstances known to us at the time, including information regarding negotiations, settlements, rulings and other relevant events and developments, (2) the advice and analyses of counsel and (3) the assumptions and judgment of management. Legal costs associated with our legal proceedings are expensed as incurred. We had accrued liabilities of $55 million and $144 million for all of our legal matters that were contingencies as of March 31, 2026 and December 31, 2025, respectively.

Substantially all of our legal contingencies are subject to significant uncertainties and, therefore, determining the likelihood of a loss and/or the measurement of any loss involves a series of complex judgments about future events. Consequently, the ultimate outcomes of our legal contingencies could result in losses in excess of amounts we have accrued. We may be unable to estimate a range of possible losses for some matters pending against us or our subsidiaries, even when the amount of damages claimed against us or our subsidiaries is stated because, among other things: (1) the claimed amount may be exaggerated or unsupported; (2) the claim may be based on a novel legal theory or involve a large number of parties; (3) there may be uncertainty as to the likelihood of a class being certified or the ultimate size of the class; (4) there may be uncertainty as to the outcome of pending appeals or motions; (5) the matter may not have progressed sufficiently through discovery or there may be significant factual or legal issues to be resolved or developed; and/or (6) there may be uncertainty as to the enforceability of legal judgments and outcomes in certain jurisdictions. Other matters have progressed sufficiently that we are able to estimate a range of possible loss. For those legal contingencies disclosed below, and those related to the previously disclosed settlement agreement entered into in February 2015 with SNAI S.p.a. (“SNAI”), as to which a loss is reasonably possible, whether in excess of a related accrued liability or where there is no accrued liability, and for which we are able to estimate a range of possible loss, the current estimated range is up to approximately $14 million in excess of the accrued liabilities (if any) related to those legal contingencies. This aggregate range represents management’s estimate of additional possible loss in excess of the accrued liabilities (if any) with respect to these matters based on currently available information, including any damages claimed by the plaintiffs, and is subject to significant judgment and a variety of assumptions and inherent uncertainties. For example, at the time of making an estimate, management may have only preliminary, incomplete, or inaccurate information about the facts underlying a claim; its assumptions about the future rulings of the court or other tribunal

on significant issues, or the behavior and incentives of adverse parties, regulators, indemnitors or co‑defendants, may prove to be wrong; and the outcomes it is attempting to predict are often not amenable to the use of statistical or other quantitative analytical tools. In addition, from time to time an outcome may occur that management had not accounted for in its estimate because it had considered that outcome to be remote. Furthermore, as noted above, the aggregate range does not include any matters for which we are not able to estimate a range of possible loss. Accordingly, the estimated aggregate range of possible loss does not represent our maximum loss exposure. Any such losses could have a material adverse impact on our results of operations, cash flows or financial condition. The legal proceedings underlying the estimated range will change from time to time, and actual results may vary significantly from the current estimate.

Our subsidiary, LNWI, owned a minority interest in Wintech de Colombia S.A., or Wintech (now liquidated), which formerly operated the Colombian national lottery under a contract with Empresa Colombiana de Recursos para la Salud, S.A. (together with its successors, “Ecosalud”), an agency of the Colombian government. The contract provided for a penalty against Wintech, LNWI and the other shareholders of Wintech of up to $5 million if certain levels of lottery sales were not achieved. In addition, LNWI delivered to Ecosalud a $4 million surety bond as a further guarantee of performance under the contract. Wintech started the instant lottery in Colombia but, due to difficulties beyond its control, including, among other factors, social and political unrest in Colombia, frequently interrupted telephone service and power outages, and competition from another lottery being operated in a province of Colombia that we believe was in violation of Wintech’s exclusive license from Ecosalud, the projected sales level was not met for the year ended June 30, 1993.

In 1993, Ecosalud issued a resolution declaring that the contract was in default. In 1994, Ecosalud issued a liquidation resolution asserting claims for compensation and damages against Wintech, LNWI and other shareholders of Wintech for, among other things, realization of the full amount of the penalty, plus interest, and the amount of the bond. LNWI filed separate actions opposing each resolution with the Tribunal Contencioso of Cundinamarca in Colombia (the “Tribunal”), which upheld both resolutions. LNWI appealed each decision to the Council of State. In May 2012, the Council of State upheld the contract default resolution, which decision was notified to us in August 2012. In October 2013, the Council of State upheld the liquidation resolution, which decision was notified to us in December 2013.

In June 1999, Ecosalud filed a collection proceeding against LNWI to enforce the liquidation resolution and recover the claimed damages. In May 2013, the Tribunal denied LNWI’s merit defenses to the collection proceeding and issued an order of payment of approximately 90 billion Colombian pesos, or approximately $30 million, plus default interest (potentially accrued since 1994 at a 12% statutory interest rate). LNWI filed an appeal to the Council of State, and on December 10, 2020, the Council of State issued a ruling affirming the Tribunal’s decision. On December 16, 2020, LNWI filed a motion for clarification of the Council of State’s ruling, which was denied on April 15, 2021. On April 22, 2021, LNWI filed a motion for reconsideration relating to that decision, which the Council of State denied on February 21, 2022. On May 24, 2022, the case was transferred from the Council of State to the Tribunal for further proceedings. On August 18, 2022, LNWI filed a constitutional challenge to the Council of State’s December 10, 2020 decision with that court, which was denied on October 7, 2022. On December 7, 2022, LNWI filed an appeal with the Council of State from the denial of the constitutional challenge, which was denied on May 24, 2023. On June 28, 2023, the Colombian Constitutional Court received the record of the constitutional appeal for further consideration, and on September 26, 2023, that court selected LNWI’s constitutional appeal for further consideration. On April 25, 2024, LNWI was notified that, by means of a decision dated April 5, 2024, a three-judge panel of the Colombian Constitutional Court denied LNWI’s constitutional appeal. On April 30, 2024, LNWI filed a motion to have that panel ruling declared null and void by the full Chamber of the Colombian Constitutional Court. On November 7, 2024, LNWI was notified that, by means of a decision dated August 8, 2024, the full Chamber of the Colombian Constitutional Court denied LNWI’s motion filed on April 30, 2024. The matter has been remanded to the Tribunal for further proceedings, and on April 30, 2025, the Tribunal issued an order directing the parties to comply with the December 10, 2020 decision of the Council of State. The matter remains pending before the Tribunal.

On April 16, 2012, certain VLTs operated by SNAI in Italy and supplied by Barcrest Group Limited (“Barcrest”) erroneously printed what appeared to be winning jackpot and other tickets with a face amount in excess of €400.0 million. SNAI has stated, and system data confirms, that no jackpots were actually won on that day. The terminals were deactivated by the Italian regulatory authority. Following the incident, we understand that the Italian regulatory authority revoked the certification of the version of the gaming system that Barcrest provided to SNAI and fined SNAI €1.5 million, but determined to not revoke SNAI’s concession to operate VLTs in Italy.

In October 2012, SNAI filed a lawsuit in the Court of First Instance of Rome in Italy against Barcrest and The Global Draw Limited, our subsidiary which acquired Barcrest from IGT‑UK Group Limited, a subsidiary of IGT, claiming liability arising out of the April 2012 incident and asserting claims based on theories of breach of contract and tort. The lawsuit sought to terminate SNAI’s agreement with Barcrest and damages arising from the deactivation of the terminals, including among other things, lost profits, expenses and costs, potential awards to players who have sought to enforce what appeared to be winning jackpot and other tickets, compensation for lost profits sought by managers of the gaming locations where SNAI VLTs supplied by Barcrest were installed, damages to commercial reputation and any future damages arising from SNAI’s potential loss of its concession or inability to obtain a new concession.

On April 2, 2021, Casino Queen, Inc. and Casino Queen Marquette, Inc. filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against L&W, Bally Technologies, Inc. and LNW Gaming, Inc., f/k/a Bally Gaming, Inc. In the complaint, the plaintiffs assert federal antitrust claims arising from the defendants’ procurement of particular U.S. patents. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants used those patents to create an allegedly illegal monopoly in the market for automatic card shufflers sold or leased in the United States. The plaintiffs seek to represent a putative class of all persons and entities that directly purchased or leased automatic card shufflers within the United States from the defendants, or any predecessor, subsidiary, or affiliate thereof, at any time between April 1, 2009, and the present. The complaint seeks unspecified money damages, which the complaint asks the court to treble, the award of plaintiffs’ costs of suit, including attorneys’ fees, and the award of pre-judgment and post-judgment interest. On June 11, 2021, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint, which the court denied on May 19, 2022. Discovery closed on December 1, 2023. On February 16, 2024, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, and plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment and a motion for class certification. On May 8, 2025, the court held a hearing on the pending motions for summary judgment. On March 31, 2026, the court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion for summary judgment; denied plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment; and granted plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. Due to the complexity of the plaintiffs’ claims, and the unpredictability of the outcome of the proceedings in the district court, or any appeal therefrom, we are unable at this time to estimate a range of reasonably possible losses, or any amount within such a range, above the amount we have recorded for this matter, which is the minimum amount of reasonably possible loss. We believe that the claims are without merit, and intend to vigorously defend against them.

On November 9, 2020, Mohawk Gaming Enterprises LLC, d/b/a Akwesasne Mohawk Casino Resort, filed a demand for a putative class arbitration before the American Arbitration Association against L&W, Bally Technologies, Inc. and LNW Gaming, Inc., f/k/a Bally Gaming, Inc. (“Respondents”). In the complaint, the claimant asserts federal antitrust claims arising from the respondents’ procurement of particular U.S. patents. The claimant alleges that the respondents used those patents to create an allegedly illegal monopoly in the market for automatic card shufflers sold or leased in the United States. The claimant seeks to represent a putative class of all persons and entities that directly purchased or leased automatic card shufflers within the United States from the respondents, or any predecessor, subsidiary, or affiliate thereof, at any time between April 1, 2009, and the present. The complaint seeks unspecified money damages, which the complaint asks the arbitration panel to treble, and the award of claimant’s costs of suit, including attorneys’ fees. Respondents filed their answering statement on December 9, 2020. On October 29, 2021, the claimant filed a memorandum in support of class arbitration, which Respondents opposed on December 3, 2021. On February 8, 2022, the Arbitrator issued a clause construction award, finding that the arbitration could proceed on behalf of a class or classes. On February 11, 2022, Respondents filed a petition to vacate the award in the New York Supreme Court. The Court denied Respondents’ petition on August 9, 2022, and on August 16, 2022, Respondents appealed to the New York Appellate Division, First Department, which denied Respondents’ appeal on June 22, 2023. On April 15, 2022, Respondents filed a motion to dismiss the claimant’s complaint, which the Arbitrator denied on July 26, 2022. Discovery closed

on December 1, 2023. On February 16, 2024, the respondents filed a motion for summary judgment. Also on February 16, 2024, claimant filed a motion for partial summary judgment and a motion for class certification. On December 9, 2024, the Arbitrator denied the motions for summary judgment and issued a class determination award, certifying a class. On January 9, 2025, Respondents filed a petition to vacate the award in New York Supreme Court. The Court denied Respondents’ petition and granted Claimant’s cross-petition to confirm the award on July 2, 2025, and on July 7, 2025, Respondents appealed to the New York Appellate Division, First Department. On November 14, 2025, the Arbitrator entered a scheduling order setting the evidentiary hearing in this matter for April 15 to 30 and May 6 to 13, 2026. On March 19, 2026, the Arbitrator entered an order postponing the evidentiary hearing pending future developments relating to Respondents’ pending appeal of the Arbitrator’s class determination award. Due to the complexity of the plaintiffs’ claims, and the unpredictability of the outcome of the proceedings before the Arbitrator, or any appeal therefrom, we are unable at this time to estimate a range of reasonably possible losses, or any amount within such a range, above the amount we have recorded for this matter, which is the minimum amount of reasonably possible loss. We believe that the claims in the arbitration demand are without merit, and intend to vigorously defend against them.

On January 13, 2026, plaintiff Mark De Guzman filed a putative class action complaint against Sciplay Corporation and SciPlay Games, LLC in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint asserts claims for alleged violations under California’s Unfair Competition Law, California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and California’s Penal Code, and for unjust enrichment. The plaintiff seeks to represent a putative class of California residents who spent money playing SciPlay’s online social casino games during the four years preceding the filing of plaintiff’s complaint. Plaintiff’s complaint seeks an order certifying the proposed class, and further seeks unspecified money damages, rescission, restitution, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief, the award of interest, expenses, costs, and plaintiff’s reasonable attorney’s fees, and unspecified other equitable relief. On March 23, 2026, defendants filed a motion to compel arbitration of plaintiff’s claims and to stay plaintiff’s lawsuit pending resolution of the arbitration. On April 23, 2026, the district court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of plaintiff’s claims, and stayed and administratively closed plaintiff’s lawsuit pending resolution of the arbitration proceedings. We are currently unable to determine the likelihood of an outcome or estimate a range of possible losses, if any. We believe that the claims in the complaint are without merit, and intend to vigorously defend against them.

On January 15, 2026, plaintiff Sean Herman filed a putative class action complaint against SciPlay Corporation and SciPlay Games, LLC in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. The complaint asserts claims for alleged violations of Washington State’s anti-gambling statutes and Washington State’s Consumer Protection Act. The plaintiff seeks to represent a putative class of Washington State residents who spent money playing SciPlay’s online social casino games during the three years preceding the filing of plaintiff’s complaint. Plaintiff’s complaint seeks an order certifying the proposed class, and further seeks unspecified money damages, rescission, restitution, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief, the award of interest, expenses, costs, and plaintiff’s reasonable attorneys’ fees, and unspecified other equitable relief. On March 30, 2026, defendants filed a motion to compel arbitration of plaintiff’s claims and to stay plaintiff’s lawsuit pending resolution of the arbitration. On April 29, 2026, plaintiff filed a Notice of Non-Opposition to defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, stating that plaintiff agrees the case should be stayed while the parties arbitrate their dispute. We are currently unable to determine the likelihood of an outcome or estimate a range of reasonably possible losses, if any. We believe that the claims in the complaint are without merit, and intend to vigorously defend against them.

On February 26, 2024, Aristocrat Technologies, Inc. and Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Limited brought a civil action in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada against L&W, LNW Gaming, Inc. and SciPlay Corporation. Plaintiffs assert claims for trade secret misappropriation, copyright infringement, trade dress infringement and unfair competition, and deceptive trade practices, relating to defendants’ DRAGON TRAINTM and JEWEL OF THE DRAGON® games. Plaintiffs’ operative complaint sought preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, unspecified damages, the award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and declaratory relief. Simultaneously with the filing of the complaint on February 26, 2024, the plaintiffs filed a motion to expedite discovery, which the court granted in part and denied in part on March 26, 2024. On April 9, 2024, defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint, which the court granted in part and denied in part on June 24, 2024. On May 22, 2024, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, which the district court granted on September 23, 2024. On July 15, 2024, the plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint, which defendants answered on August 12, 2024. On November 21, 2024, the plaintiffs filed a motion to enforce the district court’s preliminary injunction, which the court denied on January 3, 2025. On March 14, 2025, the plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint, which defendants answered on April 11, 2025. On July 15, 2025, the plaintiffs filed a motion to extend the current pretrial deadlines, which the court granted on October 2, 2025. On July 17, 2025, the parties jointly filed a

proposed stipulated order regarding the court’s preliminary injunction entered in September 2024. On October 17, 2025, the court granted plaintiffs’ renewed motion to obtain discovery of math models for certain Light & Wonder hold and spin games released since 2021. On December 11, 2025, the parties filed a stipulated motion to extend the current pretrial deadlines, which the court granted on December 16, 2025. On January 12, 2026, the parties jointly filed a motion to stay the action until March 12, 2026, in view of a settlement reached by the parties. On January 12, 2026, the court entered an order directing the parties to file, by March 12, 2026, either documents to dismiss the action or a joint status report informing the court of the status of the settlement. On February 20, 2026, the parties jointly filed a stipulation to vacate the district court’s preliminary injunction and to dismiss the action. On February 27, 2026, the court granted the parties’ request: it vacated the preliminary injunction, dismissed the action, and closed the case.

On October 4, 2024, Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Limited brought a civil action in the Federal Court of Australia against L&W and LNW Gaming ANZ Pty Ltd., among other defendants. Plaintiff asserts claims for breach of confidence, breach of contract (against other defendants) and inducing breach of contract, breaches of the Australian Consumer Law, and copyright infringement relating to defendants’ Dragon Train games, and breach of confidence relating to defendants’ Jewel of the Dragon games. Plaintiff’s complaint sought preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, unspecified damages or an account of profits, and the award of costs. On October 4, 2024, the plaintiff filed a motion for an interlocutory injunction, which it amended on November 12, 2024. On February 3, 2025, L&W and LNW Gaming ANZ Pty Ltd. filed a defense to plaintiff’s complaint. On February 6, 2025, the court denied plaintiff’s motion for interlocutory injunction. On May 26, 2025, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, and on June 3, 2025, L&W and LNW Gaming ANZ Pty Ltd. filed a defense to plaintiff’s amended complaint. On July 7, 2025, the court entered an order directing that evidence in the proceeding is to be heard by the court in two tranches, with final orders being made after a hearing on the second tranche of evidence. The trial relating to the first tranche of evidence is provisionally scheduled for June 29, 2026 through July 17, 2026. On January 12, 2026, the plaintiff, L&W and LNW Gaming ANZ Pty Ltd. jointly notified the court that they had reached a settlement between them. Under the terms of the agreement, Light & Wonder consented to an approximately $128 million payment to conclude the matters at issue, and the plaintiff, L&W and LNW Gaming ANZ Pty Ltd. promised to provide further updates relating to the settlement on or before March 11, 2026. On March 11, 2026, the court entered an order vacating all cost orders as between Aristocrat and L&W and LNW Gaming ANZ Pty Ltd., and dismissing plaintiff’s claims against L&W and LNW Gaming ANZ Pty. Ltd.

On May 28, 2024, Evolution Malta Limited, Evolution Gaming Malta Limited, and SIA Evolution Latvia brought a civil action in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada against L&W and LNW Gaming, Inc. Plaintiffs assert claims for patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation relating to defendants’ ROULETTEX® and POWERX® games and defendants’ 88 Fortunes Blaze Live Roulette game. Plaintiffs’ complaint seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, unspecified damages, the award of attorneys’ fees and costs, interest, and declaratory relief. On July 24, 2024, defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint, which the court granted as to plaintiffs’ claims for patent infringement on February 11, 2025. On August 16, 2024, defendants filed a motion to stay discovery, which the court denied on November 7, 2024. On February 7, 2025, defendants filed a motion to compel arbitration of plaintiffs’ claims for trade secret misappropriation, or, in the alternative, to dismiss the claims. On September 30, 2025, the court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of plaintiffs’ claims for trade secret misappropriation and stayed those claims. On April 10, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint and on May 15, 2025, defendants filed a motion to dismiss that First Amended Complaint, which the court denied as moot on September 30, 2025. Also on April 10, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint, which the court granted on June 30, 2025. Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint on June 30, 2025, and defendants filed a motion to dismiss the claims for patent infringement in that complaint on August 8, 2025. Also on August 8, 2025, the parties filed a joint stipulation to stay all discovery until and through January 16, 2026, which the court granted on August 11, 2025. On February 2, 2026, defendants filed a motion to stay all discovery pending the court’s ruling on defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint, and the resolution of pending Inter Partes Review proceedings involving the majority of the patents asserted in the action, which the court denied as moot on March 31, 2026. On February 3, 2026, the court entered a scheduling order setting certain pretrial deadlines, including a fact discovery deadline of October 27, 2026. On March 30, 2026, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the claims for patent infringement. We are currently unable to determine the likelihood of an outcome or estimate a range of reasonably possible losses, if any. We believe that the claims in the dispute are without merit and intend to vigorously defend against them.

On April 22, 2026, AztecGold Holdings Pty Ltd. brought a shareholder class action in the Commercial Court of the Supreme Court of Victoria, Australia against L&W. Plaintiff asserts claims for breaches of the Australian Corporations Act, the Australian Securities and Investment Commission Act 2001, and the Australian Consumer Law, relating to representations provided by L&W regarding its Dragon Train game. The lawsuit is brought on behalf of shareholders who acquired an interest in Light & Wonder CHESS Depositary Interests (CDIs) between May 22, 2023 and September 24, 2024. Plaintiff’s complaint seeks declaratory relief, unspecified damages, and the award of interest and costs. L&W’s responsive pleading to Plaintiff’s lawsuit is not yet due. We are currently unable to determine the likelihood of an outcome or estimate a range of reasonably possible losses, if any. We believe that the Plaintiff’s claims are without merit and intend to vigorously defend against them.