The Company may be involved from time to time in various lawsuits, claims, and proceedings, including intellectual property, commercial, securities, and employment matters that arise in the normal course of business. The Company accrues a liability when management believes information available prior to the issuance of the condensed consolidated financial statements indicates it is probable a loss has been incurred as of the date of the condensed consolidated financial statements and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. The Company adjusts its accruals to reflect the impact of negotiations, settlements, rulings, advice of legal counsel, and other information and events pertaining to a particular case. Legal costs are expensed as incurred.

A class action lawsuit alleging violations of federal securities laws was filed on November 29, 2023 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (the “NorCal Court”) against the Company and certain of its former officers (the “Class Defendants”). A second class action lawsuit (together with the November 2023 Class Action, the “Class Actions”) was filed against the Class Defendants on January 22, 2024. On May 16, 2024, the NorCal Court consolidated the Class Actions into one action captioned Khan v. ChargePoint Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 23-cv-06172-NW, appointed two lead plaintiffs (“Lead Plaintiffs”), and appointed lead counsel. On July 19, 2024, Lead Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint which purported to be on behalf of purchasers of the Company’s stock between December 7, 2021 and November 16, 2023. This Consolidated Amended Complaint alleged that the Class Defendants made materially false and misleading statements in violation of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (“Exchange Act”) regarding, (1) ChargePoint’s handling of supply chain disruptions; (2) ChargePoint’s revenue; and (3) the value of ChargePoint’s inventory. Lead Plaintiffs also alleged the Class Defendants engaged in a scheme to prematurely recognize revenue in violation of Sections 10(b) and Rules 10b-5(a) and (c) of the Exchange Act. The Class Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint on September 17, 2024, and the motion was fully briefed and scheduled to be heard on July 16, 2025. On July 8, 2025, pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, the NorCal Court vacated the hearing so Plaintiffs could file a Second Amended Complaint, which they did on July 22, 2025. The Second Amended Complaint alleged the same claims based on the same theories as the Consolidated Amended Complaint, but named an additional former officer as a Defendant and added additional challenged statements made within the same Class Period. The Class Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on September 17, 2025. On February 20, 2026, the NorCal Court granted the Class Defendants’ motion to dismiss with leave to amend. On March 3, 2026, plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint. The Third

Amended Complaint alleges the same claims based on the same theories as the Second Amended Complaint but removes some challenged statements related to ChargePoint’s handling of supply chain disruptions. The Class Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint on March 20, 2026. On May 21, 2026, the N. D. Cal. Court denied the motion to dismiss and, on May 22, 2026, the Court entered a scheduling order. Class Defendants’ Answer to the Third Amended Complaint is due on June 11, 2026, fact discovery closes on December 11, 2026, a mediation must be completed by December 30, 2026, and trial is scheduled for July 26, 2027.

On January 4, 2024, a ChargePoint stockholder purporting to act on behalf of the Company filed an action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against ChargePoint’s Board of Directors and certain of its former officers (“Derivative Defendants”), alleging that the Derivative Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to ChargePoint in connection with the same alleged events and alleged materially false and misleading statements asserted in the Class Actions described above. This action has been stayed. In light of the denial of Class Defendants’ motion to dismiss in the Class Action described above, the stay will automatically be lifted on June 22, 2026. Four additional substantively duplicative actions were filed in the NorCal Court on January 8, 2024, March 1, 2024, May 2, 2024, and May 24, 2024. The complaints seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief. On September 23, 2024, the NorCal Court consolidated the four California actions into one action captioned In re ChargePoint Holdings, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Case No. 24-cv-00149-NW (“Consolidated Derivative Action”). On November 4, 2024, the NorCal Court entered an order staying the Consolidated Derivative Action pending resolution of Class Defendants’ motion to dismiss in the Class Action Litigation. In light of the denial of that motion to dismiss, the parties must file a joint statement to the NorCal Court by June 22, 2026, indicating their positions as to whether the stay should be continued or lifted. A Case Management Conference for the Consolidated Derivative Action is scheduled to be held on September 8, 2026.

On May 27, 2026, another ChargePoint stockholder purporting to act on behalf of the Company filed an action in the Delaware Chancery Court against the Derivative Defendants, alleging that the Derivative Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to ChargePoint in connection with the same alleged events and alleged materially false and misleading statements asserted in the Third Amended Complaint in the Class Actions (“the Chancery Court Action”). The Chancery Court Action additionally alleges that the stockholder demanded on February 25, 2025 that the Board of Directors: (1) take action against the former officers who were defendants in the Class Actions; (2) pursue disgorgement of insider trading profits and unjust compensation obtained by corporate insiders; and (3) and obtain tolling agreements while it investigated the allegations. The Chancery Court Action alleges that the demands to investigate and take action were refused as premature and not in the interest of the Company.

On June 5, 2026, a ChargePoint stockholder purporting to act on behalf of the Company filed an action in the Delaware Court of Chancery against certain current and former officers and directors of the Company, alleging that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to ChargePoint in connection with the same alleged events and alleged materially false and misleading statements asserted in the Third Amended Complaint in the Class Actions. The complaint additionally alleges claims for insider selling and unjust enrichment, asserting that certain defendants misappropriated material nonpublic information to sell Company common stock at artificially inflated prices. The complaint seeks damages sustained by the Company as a result of the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty, disgorgement of all profits from insider stock sales made while in possession of material nonpublic information, imposition of a constructive trust over compensation and profits obtained through the alleged unjust enrichment and insider selling, and attorneys' fees and costs.

Based on its experience, the Company believes that damage amounts claimed in these matters are not meaningful indicators of potential liability. Given the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the ultimate outcome of the ongoing matters described herein cannot be predicted with certainty. While litigation is inherently unpredictable, the Company believes it has valid defenses with respect to the legal matters pending against it. Nevertheless, the condensed consolidated financial statements could be materially adversely affected in a particular period by the resolution of one or more of these contingencies. Liabilities established to provide for contingencies are adjusted as further information develops, circumstances change, or contingencies are resolved; and such changes are recorded in the accompanying condensed consolidated statements of operations during the period of the change and reflected in accrued and other current liabilities on the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheets.

In February 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling invalidating certain tariffs previously imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). As a result of this ruling, the Company may be eligible for a refund of tariffs previously paid on imported goods. As the recoverability and timing of any such refund remains uncertain, the Company has not recognized a receivable and corresponding offset to expense or asset as of April 30, 2026 and will not until such amounts are realized or realizable. The Company continues to monitor these developments and their potential impact on its results of operations. Refer to Note 13, Subsequent Events, to the condensed consolidated financial statements for additional information.

The Company’s arrangements generally include certain provisions for indemnifying customers against liabilities if its products or services infringe a third-party’s intellectual property rights. Additionally, the Company may be required to indemnify for claims caused by its negligence or willful misconduct. It is not possible to determine the maximum potential amount under these indemnification obligations due to the limited history of prior indemnification claims and the unique facts and circumstances involved in each particular agreement. To date, the Company has not incurred any material costs as a result of such obligations and has not accrued any liabilities related to such obligations in the condensed consolidated financial statements.

The Company has also agreed to indemnify its directors and executive officers for costs associated with any fees, expenses, judgments, fines and settlement amounts incurred by them in any action or proceeding to which any of them are, or are threatened to be, made a party by reason of their service as a director or officer. The Company maintains director and officer insurance coverage that would generally enable it to recover a portion of any future amounts paid. The Company also may be subject to indemnification obligations by law with respect to the actions of its employees under certain circumstances and in certain jurisdictions.