Commitment and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Apr. 30, 2026
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Non-cancellable Commitments In the normal course of business, the Company enters into non-cancellable purchase commitments with various parties. As of April 30, 2026, the Company had remaining purchase commitments of $379.8 million related to cloud hosting and associated services and $61.6 million related to professional services due over the next one to four years. The Company incurred costs totaling $104.6 million, $117.1 million, and $43.1 million during the fiscal years ended April 30, 2026, 2025, and 2024 respectively, under these arrangements. Legal Proceedings Securities Litigation On March 4, 2022, a putative securities class action complaint (captioned The Reckstin Family Trust v. C3.ai, Inc. et al., 22-cv-01413-HSG) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company, and certain current and former officers and directors. On December 12, 2022, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On February 15, 2023, the lead plaintiff and three additional named plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint names as defendants the Company, four current and former officers and directors, the underwriters in the Company’s initial public offering (“IPO”), and Baker Hughes Company (“Baker Hughes”). The amended complaint alleged that defendants made misstatements or omissions in connection with the Company’s IPO in violation of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and between December 9, 2020 and December 2, 2021, inclusive, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The amended complaint further alleged that certain defendants engaged in insider trading in violation of Section 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. All defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ amended complaint on May 1, 2023. On June 30, 2023, Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the underwriter defendants. On February 22, 2024, the court granted the motion to dismiss on all claims except for portions of the alleged violations of Section 11 and Section 15. Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on April 4, 2024. Defendants filed motions to dismiss on May 17, 2024. While the motions were pending, Plaintiffs filed a motion to amend their second amended complaint on September 27, 2024 to add new factual allegations. On February 13, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to amend, and the Plaintiffs filed their third amended complaint on February 14, 2025. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, interest, fees and costs. On March 25, 2025, defendants filed motions to dismiss the third amended complaint. On March 12, 2026, the court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss, without further leave to amend, of all claims except for claims against the Company and Thomas Siebel, Lorenzo Simonelli and David Barter, that the Company’s registration statement issued in connection with its December 2020 IPO contained a misleading statement regarding one of its resellers. Six putative shareholder derivative actions have been filed: (1) Suri v. Siebel et al. (No. 4:22-cv-03031) filed on May 23, 2022 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California; (2) Rabasca v. Siebel et al. (No.4: 23-cv-01566) filed on April 3, 2023 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California; (3) Vo v. Siebel et al. (No.1:23-cv-00428) filed on April 19, 2023 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, and transferred on August 3, 2023, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (No.3:23-cv-03895); (4) Lanfair v. Siebel et al. (No.3:24-cv-01869) filed on March 26, 2024 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California; (5) Pankow v. Siebel et al. (No.2024-0520-NAC) on May 15, 2024 in the Chancery Court of Delaware; and (6) Rosenfeld v. Siebel et al. (No.2024-0698-NAC) on June 28, 2024 in the Chancery Court of Delaware. In these cases, the plaintiffs assert claims on the Company’s behalf against certain of the Company’s current and former officers and directors for breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, gross mismanagement, corporate waste, abuse of control, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. In all six cases, the Company is named as a nominal defendant. The derivative complaints seek unspecified damages, disgorgement of profits from board member stock sales, an award of costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, and corporate governance reforms. On September 7, 2022, Suri was stayed pending resolution of the Reckstin case. On August 3, 2023, Vo was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (No. 3:23-cv-03895). On August 30, 2023, the Vo action was stayed on the same terms as the Suri action. On December 21, 2023, Rabasca was stayed on the same terms as Suri, and both Rabasca and Vo were consolidated with Suri. On July 1, 2024, Lanfair was consolidated with Suri and stayed on the same terms. The Pankow and Rosenfeld actions have not been consolidated with the Suri action but were stayed on November 13, 2024 and January 15, 2025 respectively. The Company has not yet been required to answer the complaints in any of the derivative actions. On August 22, 2025, a putative securities class action complaint (captioned John Liggett Sr. v. C3.ai, Inc. et al., No. 3:25-cv-07129) (“the Liggett case”) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company, Mr. Siebel, our Chief Executive Officer and Chairman, and our chief financial officer. The court appointed a lead plaintiff on January 7, 2026. The lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on January 28, 2026. The amended complaint alleges that the defendants made false and materially misleading statements during February to July 2025, regarding the status of the health of Mr. Siebel and its impact on the Company’s business operations. It asserts causes of action for violations of (i) Sections 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5, (ii) Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and (iii) Section 20A of the Exchange Act. The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of investors who acquired C3.ai securities from February 18, 2025 through August 8, 2025. The amended complaint requests unspecified damages and other relief. The defendants have not filed a response to the amended complaint. On April 28, 2026, all defendants moved to dismiss plaintiff’s amended complaint, and the motion is scheduled for hearing on June 23, 2026. Three putative shareholder derivative actions have been filed based on allegations similar to those in the Liggett case: (1) Jaffee v. Siebel et al. (No.3:25-cv-07334) filed on August 29, 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California; (2) Steffens v. Siebel et al. (No. 3:25-cv-07669) filed on September 9, 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California; and (3) Fernicola v. Siebel et al. (No. 3:25-cv-07750) filed on September 11, 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the District of California. In these cases, the plaintiffs assert claims on the Company’s behalf against Mr. Siebel, our Executive Chairman, our chief financial officer, and members of our board of directors. All three complaints name the Company as a nominal defendant. All three of the complaints seek unspecified damages to the Company, recovery of attorneys’ fees and other costs and expenses, corporate governance reforms, and other relief. On October 3, 2025, the three derivative cases were consolidated. On November 7, 2025, the three derivative cases were stayed pending resolution of the Liggett case. As of the date of this report, the Company does not believe it is probable that these cases will result in an unfavorable outcome; however, if an unfavorable outcome were to occur in these cases, it is possible that the impact could be material to the Company’s results of operations in the period(s) in which any such outcome becomes probable and estimable. Due to the early stages of these legal proceedings, neither the likelihood that a loss, if any, will be realized, nor an estimate of the possible loss or range of loss, if any, can be determined. On February 27, 2024, the Company filed a lawsuit in the Court of Rome, Italy against Enel Global Services S.r.l. and any involved corporate affiliates (“Enel”). The claims in the suit against Enel include misappropriation of trade secrets under Articles 98 and 99 of the Italian Industrial Property Code and breach of contract. In this action, the Company seeks compensatory damages in the amount of €2.1 billion, equitable and other relief, as well as fees and costs. The Company has also filed a report of criminal misconduct with Italian law enforcement under Article 623 of the Italian Criminal Code. On December 23, 2024, Enel initiated two lawsuits against the Company in Rome, claiming ownership of two of C3’s patent applications filed in the European Patent Office. Motions to stay prosecution of the applications were granted. Because any legal action is unpredictable, it is difficult to quantify the potential recoveries, associated potential costs, and timeline associated with resolution of this matter. Any gain on this matter is considered a gain contingency and will be recognized in the period in which the award is realized or realizable. In addition, from time to time, the Company is involved in various other legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. Apart from the foregoing, the Company is not presently a party to any other such litigation the outcome of which, the Company believes, if determined adversely to the Company, would individually, or taken together, have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, operating results, cash flows, or financial condition.

In the normal course of business, the Company enters into non-cancellable purchase commitments with various parties. As of April 30, 2026, the Company had remaining purchase commitments of $379.8 million related to cloud hosting and associated services and $61.6 million related to professional services due over the next one to four years. The Company incurred costs totaling $104.6 million, $117.1 million, and $43.1 million during the fiscal years ended April 30, 2026, 2025, and 2024 respectively, under these arrangements.

On March 4, 2022, a putative securities class action complaint (captioned The Reckstin Family Trust v. C3.ai, Inc. et al., 22-cv-01413-HSG) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company, and certain current and former officers and directors. On December 12, 2022, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On February 15, 2023, the lead plaintiff and three additional named plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint names as defendants the Company, four current and former officers and directors, the underwriters in the Company’s initial public offering (“IPO”), and Baker Hughes Company (“Baker Hughes”). The amended complaint alleged that defendants made misstatements or omissions in connection with the Company’s IPO in violation of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and between December 9, 2020 and December 2, 2021, inclusive, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The amended complaint further alleged that certain defendants engaged in insider trading in violation of Section 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. All defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ amended complaint on May 1, 2023. On June 30, 2023, Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the underwriter defendants. On February 22, 2024, the court granted the motion to dismiss on all claims except for portions of the alleged violations of Section 11 and Section 15. Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on April 4, 2024. Defendants filed motions to dismiss on May 17, 2024. While the motions were pending, Plaintiffs filed a motion to amend their second amended complaint on September 27, 2024 to add new factual allegations. On February 13, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to amend, and the Plaintiffs filed their third amended complaint on February 14, 2025. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, interest, fees and costs. On March 25, 2025, defendants filed motions to dismiss the third amended complaint. On March 12, 2026, the court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss, without further leave to amend, of all claims except for claims against the Company and Thomas Siebel, Lorenzo Simonelli and David Barter, that the Company’s registration statement issued in connection with its December 2020 IPO contained a misleading statement regarding one of its resellers.

Six putative shareholder derivative actions have been filed: (1) Suri v. Siebel et al. (No. 4:22-cv-03031) filed on May 23, 2022 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California; (2) Rabasca v. Siebel et al. (No.4: 23-cv-01566) filed on April 3, 2023 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California; (3) Vo v. Siebel et al. (No.1:23-cv-00428) filed on April 19, 2023 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, and transferred on August 3, 2023, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (No.3:23-cv-03895); (4) Lanfair v. Siebel et al. (No.3:24-cv-01869) filed on March 26, 2024 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California; (5) Pankow v. Siebel et al. (No.2024-0520-NAC) on May 15, 2024 in the Chancery Court of Delaware; and (6) Rosenfeld v. Siebel et al. (No.2024-0698-NAC) on June 28, 2024 in the Chancery Court of Delaware. In these cases, the plaintiffs assert claims on the Company’s behalf against certain of the Company’s current and former officers and directors for breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, gross mismanagement, corporate waste, abuse of control, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. In all six cases, the Company is named as a nominal defendant. The derivative complaints seek unspecified damages, disgorgement of profits from board member stock sales, an award of costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, and corporate governance reforms. On September 7, 2022, Suri was stayed pending resolution of the Reckstin case. On August 3, 2023, Vo was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (No. 3:23-cv-03895). On August 30, 2023, the Vo action was stayed on the same terms as the Suri action. On December 21, 2023, Rabasca was stayed on the same terms as Suri, and both Rabasca and Vo were consolidated with Suri. On July 1, 2024, Lanfair was consolidated with Suri and stayed on the same terms. The Pankow and Rosenfeld actions have not been consolidated with the Suri action but were stayed on November 13, 2024 and January 15, 2025 respectively. The Company has not yet been required to answer the complaints in any of the derivative actions.

On August 22, 2025, a putative securities class action complaint (captioned John Liggett Sr. v. C3.ai, Inc. et al., No. 3:25-cv-07129) (“the Liggett case”) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company, Mr. Siebel, our Chief Executive Officer and Chairman, and our chief financial officer. The court appointed a lead plaintiff on January 7, 2026. The lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on January 28, 2026. The amended complaint alleges that the defendants made false and materially misleading statements during February to July 2025, regarding the status of the health of Mr. Siebel and its impact on the Company’s business operations. It asserts causes of action for violations of (i) Sections 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5, (ii) Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and (iii) Section 20A of the Exchange Act. The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of investors who acquired C3.ai securities from February 18, 2025 through August 8, 2025. The amended complaint requests unspecified damages and other relief. The defendants have not filed a response to the amended complaint. On April 28, 2026, all defendants moved to dismiss plaintiff’s amended complaint, and the motion is scheduled for hearing on June 23, 2026.

Three putative shareholder derivative actions have been filed based on allegations similar to those in the Liggett case: (1) Jaffee v. Siebel et al. (No.3:25-cv-07334) filed on August 29, 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California; (2) Steffens v. Siebel et al. (No. 3:25-cv-07669) filed on September 9, 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California; and (3) Fernicola v. Siebel et al. (No. 3:25-cv-07750) filed on September 11, 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the District of California. In these cases, the plaintiffs assert claims on the Company’s behalf against Mr. Siebel, our Executive Chairman, our chief financial officer, and members of our board of directors. All three complaints name the Company as a nominal defendant. All three of the complaints seek unspecified damages to the Company, recovery of attorneys’ fees and other costs and expenses, corporate governance reforms, and other relief. On October 3, 2025, the three derivative cases were consolidated. On November 7, 2025, the three derivative cases were stayed pending resolution of the Liggett case.

As of the date of this report, the Company does not believe it is probable that these cases will result in an unfavorable outcome; however, if an unfavorable outcome were to occur in these cases, it is possible that the impact could be material to the Company’s results of operations in the period(s) in which any such outcome becomes probable and estimable. Due to the early stages of these legal proceedings, neither the likelihood that a loss, if any, will be realized, nor an estimate of the possible loss or range of loss, if any, can be determined.

On February 27, 2024, the Company filed a lawsuit in the Court of Rome, Italy against Enel Global Services S.r.l. and any involved corporate affiliates (“Enel”). The claims in the suit against Enel include misappropriation of trade secrets under Articles 98 and 99 of the Italian Industrial Property Code and breach of contract. In this action, the Company seeks compensatory damages in the amount of €2.1 billion, equitable and other relief, as well as fees and costs. The Company has also filed a report of criminal misconduct with Italian law enforcement under Article 623 of the Italian Criminal Code.

On December 23, 2024, Enel initiated two lawsuits against the Company in Rome, claiming ownership of two of C3’s patent applications filed in the European Patent Office. Motions to stay prosecution of the applications were granted. Because any legal action is unpredictable, it is difficult to quantify the potential recoveries, associated potential costs, and timeline associated with resolution of this matter. Any gain on this matter is considered a gain contingency and will be recognized in the period in which the award is realized or realizable.