In the ordinary course of business, we are involved in various pending and threatened litigation matters related to our operations, some of which include claims for punitive or exemplary damages. With respect to our title insurance operations, this customary litigation includes but is not limited to a wide variety of cases arising out of or related to title and escrow claims, for which we make provisions through our loss reserves. See Note B Summary of Reserve for Title Claim Losses for further discussion. Additionally, like other companies, our ordinary course litigation includes a number of class action and purported class action lawsuits, which make allegations related to aspects of our operations. We believe that no actions, other than the matters discussed below, if any, depart from customary litigation incidental to our business.

We review lawsuits and other legal and regulatory matters (collectively “legal proceedings”) on an ongoing basis when making accrual and disclosure decisions. When assessing reasonably possible and probable outcomes, management bases its decision on its assessment of the ultimate outcome assuming all appeals have been exhausted. For legal proceedings in which it has been determined that a loss is both probable and reasonably estimable, a liability based on known facts and that represents our best estimate has been recorded. Our accrual for legal and regulatory matters was $8 million and $7 million as of March 31, 2026 and December 31, 2025, respectively. None of the amounts we have currently recorded are considered to be material to our financial condition individually or in the aggregate. Actual losses may materially differ from the amounts recorded and the ultimate outcome of our pending legal proceedings is generally not yet determinable. While some of these matters could be material to our operating results or cash flows for any particular period if an unfavorable outcome results, at present we do not believe that the ultimate resolution of currently pending legal proceedings, either individually or in the aggregate, will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition.

On June 10, 2025, a stockholder derivative lawsuit styled, Patrick Ayers v. William P. Foley, Douglas K. Ammerman, Halim Dhanidina, Thomas M. Hagerty, Daniel D. Lane, Heather H. Miller, Sandra D. Morgan, John D. Rood, Peter O. Shea, Jr., Cary H. Thompson, and Fidelity National Financial, Inc., C.A. No. 2025-0650-LWW, was filed in the Chancery Court of the State of Delaware against FNF and its non-employee members of its Board of Directors alleging they breached their fiduciary duties related to their compensation in 2022, 2023, and 2024, and were unjustly enriched. Plaintiff seeks disgorgement of any alleged excessive and unfair compensation payments, the recovery of damages on behalf of FNF, and the reformation of certain corporate governance and internal measures to protect FNF and its stockholders going forward. On August 1, 2025, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit based on various grounds. The motion was argued on March 9, 2026, and a decision is pending with the court. At this time, we do not believe the lawsuit will have a material impact on our business, operations, or financial results.

Fidelity & Guaranty Life Insurance Company (“FGL Insurance”) is a defendant in a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas (the “Southern District of Texas”) styled, Insurance Distribution Consulting, LLC v. Fidelity & Guaranty Life Insurance Company, Case No. 3:23-cv-00126. Plaintiff, which provides consulting services to independent marketing organizations (“IMO”), alleges FGL Insurance failed to pay commissions owed to plaintiff and diverted commissions from one of plaintiff’s IMO customers, Syncis, to another IMO, Freedom Equity Group, LLC (“Freedom Equity”). Further, plaintiff alleges after FGL Insurance purportedly purchased a partial ownership interest in Syncis and Freedom Equity, plaintiff offered to sell its interests in its contracts with Syncis but FGL Insurance declined, leading plaintiff to allege a statutory violation of 42 U.S.C. §1981 for discrimination where plaintiff’s sole member is a racial minority. Plaintiff claims its damages for breach of contract from FGL Insurance’s purported failure to pay commissions are more than $162 million and its damages from FGL Insurance’s declining to purchase plaintiff’s interest in its contracts with Syncis are over $11 million. FGL Insurance denies the allegations and denies any contract or agreement existed with plaintiff to pay commissions. On April 21, 2025, FGL Insurance filed its initial motion for summary judgment. On June 5, 2025, plaintiff amended its complaint to include an additional breach of contract claim, prompting FGL Insurance to file a second motion for summary judgment on July 18, 2025, addressing the new allegation. Both motions for summary judgment were argued on February 20, 2026.On March 2, 2026, the magistrate judge issued a Memorandum and Recommendation (the “Recommendations”) recommending that FGL Insurance’s motions for summary judgment be granted, and that its motion to exclude Plaintiff’s expert testimony as inadmissible, filed June 9, 2025, be denied as moot. Plaintiff has filed its objections to the Recommendations, and FGL Insurance has responded. The trial judge will review the Recommendations and objections and is expected to issue an order adopting, rejecting, or

modifying them. On July 18, 2025, Peak Altitude Equity, LLC (“Peak”), a subsidiary of Fidelity & Guaranty Life Holdings, Inc., was served with a new lawsuit filed by Insurance Distribution Consulting, LLC (“IDC”) as a counterclaim in response to a separate breach of contract lawsuit initiated against IDC by Syncis. The case, styled, Syncis Insurance Solutions, LLC v. Insurance Distribution Consulting, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-03874, is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, (the “Central District of California”), and certain facts alleged by IDC against Peak overlap with those asserted in the lawsuit filed by IDC against FGL Insurance. On September 8, 2025, Peak filed its motion to dismiss IDC’s counterclaim on various grounds. A decision is pending with the Central District of California. FGL Insurance and Peak will vigorously contest the plaintiff’s claims in the actions. As these cases continue to evolve, it is not possible to reasonably estimate the probability that plaintiff will ultimately prevail on its claims or that FGL Insurance or Peak will be held liable for the dispute. At this time, we do not believe the lawsuit will have a material impact on our business, operations, or financial results.

F&G is a defendant in two putative class action lawsuits related to the alleged compromise of certain of F&G’s customers’ personal information resulting from an alleged vulnerability in the MOVEit file transfer software. F&G’s vendor, Pension Benefit Information, LLC (“PBI”), used the MOVEit software in the course of providing audit and address research services to F&G and many other corporate customers. Miller v. F&G, No. 4:23-cv-00326, was filed against F&G in the Southern District of Iowa on August 31, 2023. Miller alleges that he is a F&G customer whose information was impacted in the MOVEit incident and brings common law tort and implied contract claims. Cooper v. Progress Software Corp., No. 1:23-cv-12067, was filed against F&G and five other defendants in the District of Massachusetts on September 7, 2023. Cooper also alleges that he is a F&G customer and brings similar common law tort claims and alleges claims as a purported third-party beneficiary of an alleged contract. Well over 150 similar lawsuits have been filed against other entities impacted by the MOVEit incident including a number of such lawsuits related to PBI’s use of MOVEit. On October 4, 2023, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation created a multidistrict litigation (“MDL”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to handle all litigation brought by individuals whose information was potentially compromised in connection with the alleged MOVEit vulnerability. Both Miller and Cooper have been transferred to the MDL and are consolidated under MDL Case No. 1:23-md-03083-ADB-PGL. The case is proceeding under a modified bellwether structure to decide critical issues and facilitate reciprocal discovery, and plaintiffs’ consolidated class action complaint against all the bellwether Defendants was filed on December 6, 2024. F&G was not selected as a bellwether Defendant, and there is no schedule in place for further proceedings involving the non-bellwether Defendants like F&G. At this time, we do not believe the incident will have a material impact on our business, operations, or financial results.

From time to time, we receive inquiries and requests for information from state insurance departments, attorneys general, and other regulatory agencies about various matters relating to our business. Sometimes these take the form of civil investigative demands or subpoenas. We cooperate with all such inquiries, and we have responded to or are currently responding to inquiries from multiple governmental agencies. Also, regulators and courts have been dealing with issues arising from foreclosures and related processes and documentation. Various governmental entities are studying the title insurance product, market, pricing, and business practices, and potential regulatory and legislative changes, which may materially affect our business and operations. From time to time, we are assessed fines for violations of regulations or other matters or enter into settlements with such authorities, which may require us to pay fines or claims or take other actions. We do not anticipate such fines and settlements, either individually or in the aggregate, will have a material adverse effect on our business, operations, or financial results.