COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2026
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Commitments Acquisitions and Partnerships On February 26, 2026, the Company entered into a Strategic Agreement with Starwood to jointly develop, finance and operate AI and HPC infrastructure. Under the Strategic Agreement, the Company has committed to contribute certain sites to and retain up to 50% ownership interest in a newly formed joint venture. As of March 31, 2026, all sites continue to be deemed held and used in the Company’s operations, as none have advanced beyond the pre-development phase and the other conditions required for contribution have not been satisfied. In addition, uncertainty remains regarding the timing of any potential contribution and the Company’s resulting retained ownership interests. Under the Strategic Agreement, the Company is responsible for funding all approved pursuit costs during the pre-development phase, with $136.3 million approved in the aggregate across all sites. Miners and Other Mining Equipment For the three months ended March 31, 2026, no payments were made under existing purchasing agreements for miners and other mining equipment, and no new agreements were entered into. As of March 31, 2026, remaining commitments of approximately $42.0 million were outstanding. The Company contracts with service providers for hosting its equipment and operational support in data centers where its equipment is deployed. Under these arrangements, the Company expects to pay at minimum approximately $382.8 million in total payments over the next two years. Contingent Consideration Liabilities In connection with certain acquisitions, the Company may be required to make additional payments to the sellers contingent upon the occurrence of future events. As of March 31, 2026, the estimated fair value of total contingent consideration was approximately $25.6 million, of which $11.8 million related to the Exaion acquisition. Refer to Note 3 – Acquisitions and Strategic Partnerships, for further information. Contingencies Legal Proceedings The Company from time to time may be subject to various claims, lawsuits and legal proceedings that arise from the ordinary course of business. In accordance with ASC 450, Contingencies, if a loss contingency associated with the following legal matters are probable to be incurred and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated, an accrual is recorded on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. As of March 31, 2026, the Company has determined that the liabilities associated with certain litigation matters are not expected to have a material impact on the Company’s Financial Statements. The Company will continue to monitor each related legal issue and adjust accruals as new information becomes available and developments occur. Moreno v. MARA On March 30, 2023, a putative class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada against the Company and current and former senior management, alleging claims under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), arising out of the Company’s announcement of accounting restatements on February 28, 2023. On March 29, 2024, the court appointed lead plaintiffs and counsel. On June 4, 2024, lead plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint, styled as Langer et al. v. Marathon et al. The allegations in the amended complaint are substantially similar to those in the March 30, 2023 putative class action complaint. On August 5, 2024, defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. On December 6, 2024, the motion to dismiss the amended class action complaint was fully briefed. On March 3, 2025, the United States District Court for the District of Nevada heard the Company’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint and granted the motion, while also granting the plaintiffs thirty days to amend their complaint to avoid permanent dismissal. On April 2, 2025, lead plaintiffs filed a second amended class action complaint. The Company moved to dismiss the second amended complaint on June 2, 2025. On September 10, 2025, the motion to dismiss the second amended complaint was fully briefed. A hearing on the Company’s motion to dismiss the second amended complaint was held on February 13, 2026. On March 31, 2026, the court dismissed this case with prejudice. On April 30, 2026, lead plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Derivative Complaints On June 22, 2023, a shareholder derivative complaint was filed in the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit for Broward County, Florida, against certain current members of the Company’s board of directors and senior management, alleging claims for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment based on allegations substantially similar those in the March 30, 2023 putative class action complaint in Moreno. On July 8, 2023, a second shareholder derivative complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada against current and former members of the Company’s board of directors and senior management, alleging claims under Sections 14(a), 10(b), and 21D of the Exchange Act and for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and waste of corporate assets, based on allegations substantially similar to the allegations in the March 30, 2023 putative class action complaint in Moreno. On July 12, 2023, a third shareholder derivative complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada against current and former members of the Company’s board of directors and senior management, alleging claims under Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and for breach of fiduciary duty, based on allegations substantially similar to the allegations in the March 30, 2023 putative class action complaint in Moreno. On July 13, 2023, a fourth shareholder derivative complaint was filed in the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit for Broward County, Florida (together with the complaint filed on June 22, 2023, the “Florida Derivative Actions”), against current members of the Company’s board of directors and senior management, alleging claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment and waste of corporate assets, based on allegations substantially similar to the allegations in the March 30, 2023 putative class action complaint in Moreno. On August 14, 2023, the two derivative actions pending in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada were consolidated (the “Nevada Derivative Action”). On April 1, 2024, the United States District Court for the District of Nevada appointed co-lead counsel for plaintiffs in the Nevada Derivative Action. On June 25, 2024, plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint in the Nevada Derivative Action alleging breaches of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, waste of corporate assets, claims under Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and for contribution under Sections 10(b) and 21D of the Exchange Act. On August 9, 2024, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint in the Nevada Derivative Action. On October 16, 2023, the parties to the derivative actions pending in the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit for Broward County, Florida filed an agreed order to stay both actions pending completion of the Nevada Derivative Action. On July 25, 2024, the Florida Derivative Actions were administratively closed. On November 7, 2024, the motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the Nevada Derivative Action was fully briefed. On February 20, 2025, the United States District Court for the District of Nevada heard the Company’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint and granted the motion, while also granting plaintiffs thirty days to amend to avoid permanent dismissal. On March 21, 2025, plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated complaint. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended consolidated complaint on May 20, 2025. On August 20, 2025, the motion to dismiss the second amended complaint was fully briefed. A hearing on the Company’s motion to dismiss was held on February 13, 2026, and the parties currently await a decision from the court. Ho v. MARA On January 14, 2021, plaintiff Michael Ho (“Ho”) filed a civil complaint alleging, among other things, that the Company breached a non-disclosure agreement, profited from commercially sensitive information he shared with the Company, and refused to compensate him for his role in securing the Company’s acquisition of an energy supplier. The complaint initially alleged six causes of action: (1) breach of written contract, (2) breach of implied contract, (3) quasi-contract, (4) services rendered, (5) intentional interference with prospective economic relations and (6) negligent interference with prospective economic relations. On February 22, 2021, the Company filed a general denial of the claims and asserted certain affirmative defenses. On February 25, 2021, the Company removed the action to the United States District Court in the Central District of California. The Company subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment on each cause of action. As a result of the court’s summary judgment ruling and Ho’s voluntary dismissal of certain claims, the only remaining cause of action at the time of verdict was breach of written contract. On July 8, 2024, the court commenced a jury trial on the sole remaining claim. On July 18, 2024, the jury found that the Company had breached the non-disclosure agreement and returned a verdict in the amount of $138.8 million. On September 18, 2024, the court entered a judgment in the same amount, plus post-judgment interest. The Company has not paid any portion of the award. On October 16, 2024, the Company filed a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law (or, in the alternative, for a new trial and remittitur), seeking to overturn or significantly reduce the damages award. On the same date, the Company filed a motion to correct the post-judgment interest rate set forth in the judgment, and Ho filed a motion requesting an award of pre-judgment interest. In the fourth quarter of 2024, the Company obtained a surety bond for the amount owing. On May 7, 2025, the court denied the Company’s motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial but granted a 20 percent reduction of the jury’s verdict. The court also denied Ho’s motion for pre-verdict prejudgment interest but awarded post-verdict prejudgment interest. On June 2, 2025, the Company filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and on September 25, 2025, the Company filed its opening appeal brief. Briefing concluded on January 16, 2026. Malikie Innovations Ltd. et al v. MARA On May 12, 2025, Malikie Innovations Ltd., a non-practicing entity (“Malikie”), filed a lawsuit against the Company in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, alleging that the Company’s Bitcoin mining operations infringe certain patents relating to cryptographic technologies used in the Bitcoin network. On July 21, 2025, the Company filed a motion to dismiss claims with respect to one of the asserted patents, which remains pending. On December 17, 2025, the Company filed its opening claim construction brief. The parties subsequently completed claim construction briefing. On December 23 and 24, 2025, the Company filed petitions for ex parte reexamination of each patent asserted by Malikie with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”). On March 10, 2026, the USPTO granted the final request for ex parte reexamination, bringing all six patents asserted by Malikie under ex parte reexamination. On January 20, 2026, the Company filed a motion to stay the litigation pending the outcome of the requested ex parte reexaminations; that motion remains pending. On March 4, 2026, the court held a claim construction hearing, and on March 12, 2026, the magistrate judge issued a claim construction order, which the court has not yet adopted. Discovery opened on March 5, 2026, and is ongoing. As of May 7, 2026, Malikie had filed petitions with the USPTO Director seeking to cancel the ex parte reexamination of all asserted patents.

On February 26, 2026, the Company entered into a Strategic Agreement with Starwood to jointly develop, finance and operate AI and HPC infrastructure. Under the Strategic Agreement, the Company has committed to contribute certain sites to and retain up to 50% ownership interest in a newly formed joint venture. As of March 31, 2026, all sites continue to be deemed held and used in the Company’s operations, as none have advanced beyond the pre-development phase and the other conditions required for contribution have not been satisfied. In addition, uncertainty remains regarding the timing of any potential contribution and the Company’s resulting retained ownership interests. Under the Strategic Agreement, the Company is responsible for funding all approved pursuit costs during the pre-development phase, with $136.3 million approved in the aggregate across all sites.

For the three months ended March 31, 2026, no payments were made under existing purchasing agreements for miners and other mining equipment, and no new agreements were entered into. As of March 31, 2026, remaining commitments of approximately $42.0 million were outstanding.

The Company contracts with service providers for hosting its equipment and operational support in data centers where its equipment is deployed. Under these arrangements, the Company expects to pay at minimum approximately $382.8 million in total payments over the next two years.

In connection with certain acquisitions, the Company may be required to make additional payments to the sellers contingent upon the occurrence of future events. As of March 31, 2026, the estimated fair value of total contingent consideration was approximately $25.6 million, of which $11.8 million related to the Exaion acquisition. Refer to Note 3 – Acquisitions and Strategic Partnerships, for further information.

In accordance with ASC 450, Contingencies, if a loss contingency associated with the following legal matters are probable to be incurred and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated, an accrual is recorded on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. As of March 31, 2026, the Company has determined that the liabilities associated with certain litigation matters are not expected to have a material impact on the Company’s Financial Statements. The Company will continue to monitor each related legal issue and adjust accruals as new information becomes available and developments occur.

On March 30, 2023, a putative class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada against the Company and current and former senior management, alleging claims under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), arising out of the Company’s announcement of accounting restatements on February 28, 2023. On March 29, 2024, the court appointed lead plaintiffs and counsel. On June 4, 2024, lead plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint, styled as Langer et al. v. Marathon et al. The allegations in the amended complaint are substantially similar to those in the March 30, 2023 putative class action complaint.

On August 5, 2024, defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. On December 6, 2024, the motion to dismiss the amended class action complaint was fully briefed. On March 3, 2025, the United States District Court for the District of Nevada heard the Company’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint and granted the motion, while also granting the plaintiffs thirty days to amend their complaint to avoid permanent dismissal. On April 2, 2025, lead plaintiffs filed a second amended class action complaint. The Company moved to dismiss the second amended complaint on June 2, 2025. On September 10, 2025, the motion to dismiss the second amended complaint was fully briefed. A hearing on the Company’s motion to dismiss the second amended complaint was held on February 13, 2026. On March 31, 2026, the court dismissed this case with prejudice. On April 30, 2026, lead plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

On June 22, 2023, a shareholder derivative complaint was filed in the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit for Broward County, Florida, against certain current members of the Company’s board of directors and senior management, alleging claims for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment based on allegations substantially similar those in the March 30, 2023 putative class action complaint in Moreno.

On July 8, 2023, a second shareholder derivative complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada against current and former members of the Company’s board of directors and senior management, alleging claims under Sections 14(a), 10(b), and 21D of the Exchange Act and for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and waste of corporate assets, based on allegations substantially similar to the allegations in the March 30, 2023 putative class action complaint in Moreno.

On July 12, 2023, a third shareholder derivative complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada against current and former members of the Company’s board of directors and senior management, alleging claims under Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and for breach of fiduciary duty, based on allegations substantially similar to the allegations in the March 30, 2023 putative class action complaint in Moreno.

On July 13, 2023, a fourth shareholder derivative complaint was filed in the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit for Broward County, Florida (together with the complaint filed on June 22, 2023, the “Florida Derivative Actions”), against current members of the Company’s board of directors and senior management, alleging claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment and waste of corporate assets, based on allegations substantially similar to the allegations in the March 30, 2023 putative class action complaint in Moreno.

On August 14, 2023, the two derivative actions pending in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada were consolidated (the “Nevada Derivative Action”). On April 1, 2024, the United States District Court for the District of Nevada appointed co-lead counsel for plaintiffs in the Nevada Derivative Action. On June 25, 2024, plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint in the Nevada Derivative Action alleging breaches of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, waste of corporate assets, claims under Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and for contribution under Sections 10(b) and 21D of the Exchange Act. On August 9, 2024, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint in the Nevada Derivative Action.

On October 16, 2023, the parties to the derivative actions pending in the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit for Broward County, Florida filed an agreed order to stay both actions pending completion of the Nevada Derivative Action. On July 25, 2024, the Florida Derivative Actions were administratively closed.

On November 7, 2024, the motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the Nevada Derivative Action was fully briefed. On February 20, 2025, the United States District Court for the District of Nevada heard the Company’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint and granted the motion, while also granting plaintiffs thirty days to amend to avoid permanent dismissal. On March 21, 2025, plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated complaint. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended consolidated complaint on May 20, 2025. On August 20, 2025, the motion to dismiss the second amended complaint was fully briefed. A hearing on the Company’s motion to dismiss was held on February 13, 2026, and the parties currently await a decision from the court.

On January 14, 2021, plaintiff Michael Ho (“Ho”) filed a civil complaint alleging, among other things, that the Company breached a non-disclosure agreement, profited from commercially sensitive information he shared with the Company, and refused to compensate him for his role in securing the Company’s acquisition of an energy supplier. The complaint initially alleged six causes of action: (1) breach of written contract, (2) breach of implied contract, (3) quasi-contract, (4) services rendered, (5) intentional interference with prospective economic relations and (6) negligent interference with prospective economic relations.

On February 22, 2021, the Company filed a general denial of the claims and asserted certain affirmative defenses. On February 25, 2021, the Company removed the action to the United States District Court in the Central District of California. The Company subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment on each cause of action. As a result of the court’s summary judgment ruling and Ho’s voluntary dismissal of certain claims, the only remaining cause of action at the time of verdict was breach of written contract.

On July 8, 2024, the court commenced a jury trial on the sole remaining claim. On July 18, 2024, the jury found that the Company had breached the non-disclosure agreement and returned a verdict in the amount of $138.8 million. On September 18, 2024, the court entered a judgment in the same amount, plus post-judgment interest. The Company has not paid any portion of the award.

On October 16, 2024, the Company filed a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law (or, in the alternative, for a new trial and remittitur), seeking to overturn or significantly reduce the damages award. On the same date, the Company filed a motion to correct the post-judgment interest rate set forth in the judgment, and Ho filed a motion requesting an award of pre-judgment interest. In the fourth quarter of 2024, the Company obtained a surety bond for the amount owing.

On May 7, 2025, the court denied the Company’s motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial but granted a 20 percent reduction of the jury’s verdict. The court also denied Ho’s motion for pre-verdict prejudgment interest but awarded post-verdict prejudgment interest. On June 2, 2025, the Company filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and on September 25, 2025, the Company filed its opening appeal brief. Briefing concluded on January 16, 2026.

On May 12, 2025, Malikie Innovations Ltd., a non-practicing entity (“Malikie”), filed a lawsuit against the Company in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, alleging that the Company’s Bitcoin mining operations infringe certain patents relating to cryptographic technologies used in the Bitcoin network. On July 21, 2025, the Company filed a motion to dismiss claims with respect to one of the asserted patents, which remains pending. On December 17, 2025, the Company filed its opening claim construction brief. The parties subsequently completed claim construction briefing.

On December 23 and 24, 2025, the Company filed petitions for ex parte reexamination of each patent asserted by Malikie with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”). On March 10, 2026, the USPTO granted the final request for ex parte reexamination, bringing all six patents asserted by Malikie under ex parte reexamination. On January 20, 2026, the Company filed a motion to stay the litigation pending the outcome of the requested ex parte reexaminations; that motion remains pending. On March 4, 2026, the court held a claim construction hearing, and on March 12, 2026, the magistrate judge issued a claim construction order, which the court has not yet adopted. Discovery opened on March 5, 2026, and is ongoing. As of May 7, 2026, Malikie had filed petitions with the USPTO Director seeking to cancel the ex parte reexamination of all asserted patents.