Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2026
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 14. Commitments and Contingencies Litigation and claims On August 30, 2024, a putative class action complaint was filed against the Company, the Company’s Chief Executive Officer, and the Company’s Chief Financial Officer in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Averza v. Super Micro Computer, Inc., et al., No. 5:24-cv-06147). Additional putative class action complaints were filed in the same court on October 4, 2024 (Norfolk County Retirement System v. Super Micro Computer, Inc., et al., No. 5:24-cv-06980); on October 18, 2024 (Covey Financial Inc., et al. v. Super Micro Computer, Inc., et al., No. 5:24-cv-07274); and on March 25, 2026 (Bhuva v. Super Micro Computer, Inc. et al, No. 3:26-cv-02606). Another such complaint was filed on April 8, 2026 (City of Hialeah Employees Retirement System v. Super Micro Computer, Inc. et al, No. 5:26-cv-03018), which included a former director of the company as an additional defendant. The complaints contain similar allegations, claiming that (i) each of the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and (ii) each of the Company’s Chief Executive Officer and the Company’s Chief Financial Officer violated Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act as controlling persons of the Company for the alleged violations under (i), due (in each case) to alleged misrepresentations and/or omissions in public statements regarding the Company’s financial results and its internal controls and procedures. The Court then appointed Universal-Investment-Gesellschaft mbH as the Lead Plaintiff, who thereafter filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint on September 22, 2025. The appointment of Lead Plaintiff has been appealed to the Supreme Court of California. Company filed its Motion to Dismiss on November 21, 2025. These matters are too preliminary to form a judgment as to whether the likelihood of an adverse outcome is probable and we are unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any. On September 11, 2024, certain current and former directors and certain current officers of the Company were named as defendants in a putative derivative lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned Hollin v. Liang, et al., Case No. 5:24-cv-06410 (the “Hollin Action”). Four additional putative derivative lawsuits have been filed in the same court, captioned Latypov v. Liang, et al., Case No. 5:24-cv-06779 (filed Sept. 26, 2024), Keritsis v. Liang, et al., Case No. 5:24-cv-07753 (filed Nov. 6, 2024), Roy v. Liang, et al., Case No. 5:24-cv-08006 (filed Nov. 14, 2024), and Jha v. Liang, et al., No. 5:24-cv-08792 (filed Dec. 5, 2024) (together with the Hollin Action, the “Federal Derivative Litigation”). On November 20, 2024, a similar putative derivative lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, captioned Spatz v. Liang, et al., Case No. 24CV452241 (the “Spatz Action”). Two additional putative derivative lawsuits have been filed in the same court, captioned Clark v. Liang, et al., Case No. 24CV454416 (filed Dec. 17, 2024) and Carter, et al. v. Liang, et al., Case No. 24CV454689 (filed Dec. 20, 2024) (together with the Spatz Action, the “State Court Derivative Litigation,” and together with the Federal Derivative Litigation, the “Derivative Litigation”). The Company was also named as a nominal defendant in the Derivative Litigation. The Federal Derivative Litigation purports to allege derivative claims for breaches of Sections 10(b), 14(a), and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rules 10b-5 and 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, and contribution arising out of allegations that the Company’s officers and directors caused the Company to issue materially false and misleading statements concerning the Company’s business operations and financial results. The State Court Derivative Litigation purports to allege claims for breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, unjust enrichment, and insider trading arising out of similar allegations as the Federal Derivative Litigation. The plaintiffs in the Derivative Litigation seek unspecified money damages, in addition to punitive damages and other relief. The Court in the Hollin Action consolidated the five previously stayed Federal Derivative Litigation actions. The Court in the Spatz Action stayed all proceedings and consolidating the three State Court Derivative Litigation actions. On August 29, 2025, certain current and former directors and certain current officers of the Company were named as defendants in another putative derivative lawsuit filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery, captioned Anderson v. Liang, et al., C.A. No. 2025-0986-KSJM. On January 6, 2026, a substantially similar lawsuit was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery, captioned Mathiyalagan v. Liang, et. al., C.A. No. 2026-0013-KSJM. On January 29, 2026, another substantially similar lawsuit was filed in Northern District of California by plaintiffs Employees’ Retirement System of the State of Rhode Island and Bucks County Employees’ Retirement System, Case No. 5:26-cv-00955-NC. These matters are too preliminary to form a judgment as to whether the likelihood of an adverse outcome is probable and we are unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any. On November 19, 2024, the Company received a subpoena from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Enforcement Staff in connection with an investigation entitled In the Matter of Super Micro Computer, Inc. The Company continues to produce documents in response to the subpoena. The Company received another subpoena on April 28, 2026. The matter is too preliminary to form a judgment as to whether the likelihood of an adverse outcome is probable and we are unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any. Other legal proceedings and indemnifications In the ordinary course of our business, we periodically receive subpoenas, civil investigative demands, and other formal requests for information from various courts, regulatory bodies, and government agencies. These requests typically seek documents or information related to our customers, products, or transactions in connection with matters that do not directly name or involve us as a party or target. Our general policy is to cooperate and respond fully to such requests as required by law. We are not aware of any such matters that, individually or in the aggregate, are expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position. We have entered into indemnification agreements with our current and former directors and executive officers. Under these agreements, we have agreed to indemnify such individuals to the fullest extent permitted by law against liabilities that arise by reason of their status as directors or officers and to advance expenses incurred by such individuals in connection with related legal proceedings. It is not possible to determine the maximum potential amount of payments we could be required to make under these agreements due to the limited history of prior indemnification claims and the unique facts and circumstances involved in each claim. However, we maintain directors and officers liability insurance coverage to reduce our exposure to such obligations. Other matters As a result of a Supreme Court ruling issued in February 2026, we may be entitled to a refund of tariffs previously paid on imported products under the IEEPA. As of March 31, 2026, we have not recognized an asset related to the potential refund. We will continue to evaluate new information and will recognize the refund when the right to receive the amount becomes realized or realizable. On April 7, 2026, the Company announced that it had launched an independent investigation into the allegations described in the March 19, 2026, indictment from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York concerning three individuals either employed or associated with the Company at the time in connection with an alleged conspiracy to commit export control violations. The independent investigation is being led by the Lead Independent Director of the Company’s Board and the Chair of the Board’s Audit Committee, who will report their findings and conclusions to the other four independent members of the Board. The investigations are ongoing and no conclusion has been reached. Purchase Commitments— We have agreements to purchase inventory and non-inventory items primarily through the next 12 months. As of March 31, 2026, these remaining non-cancelable commitments were $10.1 billion, including $228.6 million for related parties. We also review and assess the need for expected loss liabilities on a quarterly basis for all products we do not expect to sell but have committed purchases from suppliers. As of March 31, 2026, we recorded $4.1 million of loss liabilities. The loss liabilities are recorded in accrued liabilities in our condensed consolidated balance sheets. There were no loss liabilities recognized as of June 30, 2025. Lease Commitments— See Note 10, “Leases”, for a discussion of our operating lease commitments.

Commitments and Contingencies

Note 14. Commitments and Contingencies

Litigation and claims

On August 30, 2024, a putative class action complaint was filed against the Company, the Company’s Chief Executive Officer, and the Company’s Chief Financial Officer in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Averza v. Super Micro Computer, Inc., et al., No. 5:24-cv-06147). Additional putative class action complaints were filed in the same court on October 4, 2024 (Norfolk County Retirement System v. Super Micro Computer, Inc., et al., No. 5:24-cv-06980); on October 18, 2024 (Covey Financial Inc., et al. v. Super Micro Computer, Inc., et al., No. 5:24-cv-07274); and on March 25, 2026 (Bhuva v. Super Micro Computer, Inc. et al, No. 3:26-cv-02606). Another such complaint was filed on April 8, 2026 (City of Hialeah Employees Retirement System v. Super Micro Computer, Inc. et al, No. 5:26-cv-03018), which included a former director of the company as an additional defendant. The complaints contain similar allegations, claiming that (i) each of the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and (ii) each of the Company’s Chief Executive Officer and the Company’s Chief Financial Officer violated Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act as controlling persons of the Company for the alleged violations under (i), due (in each case) to alleged misrepresentations and/or omissions in public statements regarding the Company’s financial results and its internal controls and procedures. The Court then appointed Universal-Investment-Gesellschaft mbH as the Lead Plaintiff, who thereafter filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint on September 22, 2025. The appointment of Lead Plaintiff has been appealed to the Supreme Court of California. Company filed its Motion to Dismiss on November 21, 2025. These matters are too preliminary to form a judgment as to whether the likelihood of an adverse outcome is probable and we are unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any.

On September 11, 2024, certain current and former directors and certain current officers of the Company were named as defendants in a putative derivative lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned Hollin v. Liang, et al., Case No. 5:24-cv-06410 (the “Hollin Action”). Four additional putative derivative lawsuits have been filed in the same court, captioned Latypov v. Liang, et al., Case No. 5:24-cv-06779 (filed Sept. 26, 2024), Keritsis v. Liang, et al., Case No. 5:24-cv-07753 (filed Nov. 6, 2024), Roy v. Liang, et al., Case No. 5:24-cv-08006 (filed Nov. 14, 2024), and Jha v. Liang, et al., No. 5:24-cv-08792 (filed Dec. 5, 2024) (together with the Hollin Action, the “Federal Derivative Litigation”). On November 20, 2024, a similar putative derivative lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, captioned Spatz v. Liang, et al., Case No. 24CV452241 (the “Spatz Action”). Two additional putative derivative lawsuits have been filed in the same court, captioned Clark v. Liang, et al., Case No. 24CV454416 (filed Dec. 17, 2024) and Carter, et al. v. Liang, et al., Case No. 24CV454689 (filed Dec. 20, 2024) (together with the Spatz Action, the “State Court Derivative Litigation,” and together with the Federal Derivative Litigation, the “Derivative Litigation”). The Company was also named as a nominal defendant in the Derivative Litigation. The Federal Derivative Litigation purports to allege derivative claims for breaches of Sections 10(b), 14(a), and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rules 10b-5 and 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, and contribution arising out of allegations that the Company’s officers and directors caused the Company to issue materially false and misleading statements concerning the Company’s business operations and financial results. The State Court Derivative Litigation purports to allege claims for breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, unjust enrichment, and insider trading arising out of similar allegations as the Federal Derivative Litigation. The plaintiffs in the Derivative Litigation seek unspecified money damages, in addition to punitive damages and other relief. The Court in the Hollin Action consolidated the five previously stayed Federal Derivative Litigation actions. The Court in the Spatz Action stayed all proceedings and consolidating the three State Court Derivative Litigation actions. On August 29, 2025, certain current and former directors and certain current officers of the Company were named as defendants in another putative derivative lawsuit filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery, captioned Anderson v. Liang, et al., C.A. No. 2025-0986-KSJM. On January 6, 2026, a substantially similar lawsuit was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery, captioned Mathiyalagan v. Liang, et. al., C.A. No. 2026-0013-KSJM. On January 29, 2026, another substantially similar lawsuit was filed in Northern District of California by plaintiffs Employees’ Retirement System of the State of Rhode Island and Bucks County Employees’ Retirement System, Case No. 5:26-cv-00955-NC. These matters are too preliminary to form a judgment as to whether the likelihood of an adverse outcome is probable and we are unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any.

On November 19, 2024, the Company received a subpoena from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Enforcement Staff in connection with an investigation entitled In the Matter of Super Micro Computer, Inc. The Company continues to produce documents in response to the subpoena. The Company received another subpoena on April 28, 2026. The matter is too preliminary to form a judgment as to whether the likelihood of an adverse outcome is probable and we are unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any.

Other legal proceedings and indemnifications

In the ordinary course of our business, we periodically receive subpoenas, civil investigative demands, and other formal requests for information from various courts, regulatory bodies, and government agencies. These requests typically seek documents or information related to our customers, products, or transactions in connection with matters that do not directly name or involve us as a party or target. Our general policy is to cooperate and respond fully to such requests as required by law. We are not aware of any such matters that, individually or in the aggregate, are expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position.

We have entered into indemnification agreements with our current and former directors and executive officers. Under these agreements, we have agreed to indemnify such individuals to the fullest extent permitted by law against liabilities that arise by reason of their status as directors or officers and to advance expenses incurred by such individuals in connection with related legal proceedings. It is not possible to determine the maximum potential amount of payments we could be required to make under these agreements due to the limited history of prior indemnification claims and the unique facts and circumstances involved in each claim. However, we maintain directors and officers liability insurance coverage to reduce our exposure to such obligations.

As a result of a Supreme Court ruling issued in February 2026, we may be entitled to a refund of tariffs previously paid on imported products under the IEEPA. As of March 31, 2026, we have not recognized an asset related to the potential refund. We will continue to evaluate new information and will recognize the refund when the right to receive the amount becomes realized or realizable.

On April 7, 2026, the Company announced that it had launched an independent investigation into the allegations described in the March 19, 2026, indictment from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York concerning three individuals either employed or associated with the Company at the time in connection with an alleged conspiracy to commit export control violations. The independent investigation is being led by the Lead Independent Director of the Company’s Board and the Chair of the Board’s Audit Committee, who will report their findings and conclusions to the other four independent members of the Board. The investigations are ongoing and no conclusion has been reached.

Purchase Commitments— We have agreements to purchase inventory and non-inventory items primarily through the next 12 months. As of March 31, 2026, these remaining non-cancelable commitments were $10.1 billion, including $228.6 million for related parties. We also review and assess the need for expected loss liabilities on a quarterly basis for all products we do not expect to sell but have committed purchases from suppliers. As of March 31, 2026, we recorded $4.1 million of loss liabilities. The loss liabilities are recorded in accrued liabilities in our condensed consolidated balance sheets. There were no loss liabilities recognized as of June 30, 2025.

Lease Commitments— See Note 10, “Leases”, for a discussion of our operating lease commitments.