Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2026
Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	13 — COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Commitments The Company has not entered any off-balance sheet financial guarantees or other off-balance sheet commitments to guarantee the payment obligations of any third parties. The Company has not entered any derivative contracts that are indexed to its shares and classified as shareholder’s equity or that are not reflected in its consolidated financial statements. Furthermore, the Company does not have any retained or contingent interest in assets transferred to an unconsolidated entity that serves as credit, liquidity or market risk support to such entity. The Company does not have any variable interest in any unconsolidated entity that provides financing, liquidity, market risk or credit support to itself or engages in leasing, hedging or product development services with itself. Contingencies Legal The Company is a party to certain legal proceedings, as well as certain asserted and unasserted claims. Amounts accrued, as well as the total amount of reasonably possible losses with respect to such matters, individually and in the aggregate, are not deemed to be material to the consolidated financial statements. The Company’s products and other production facilities as well as the packaging, storage, distribution, advertising and labeling of its products, are subject to extensive legal and regulatory requirements. For example, pursuant to the DMV registration requirement, the Company must satisfy the DMV Registration requirements and conduct required testing for all of its products sold in U.S. Loss of or failure to renew or obtain necessary permits, licenses, registrations, or certificates could prevent the Company from legally selling its products in the U.S. If the Company were found to be in violation of applicable laws and regulations, it could be subject to administrative punishment, including fines, injunctions, recalls or asset seizures, as well as potential criminal sanctions, any of which could have a material adverse effect on its business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. As of the date hereof, the Company believes it is in compliance with the relevant regulations in the U.S. *Federal securities class action instituted on September 8, 2025* On September 8, 2025, a federal securities class action was filed in the United States District Court, Eastern District of New York, by plaintiff Dino Kurt, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, against defendants, the Company, chief executive officer (the “CEO”) Zhou Ou, and former chief financial officer (the “CFO”) Shiwen Feng (the “Class Action”). The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 during the class period spanning from July 15, 2025, to August 14, 2025. The plaintiff claims that defendants provided materially false and misleading positive statements about revenue growth, brand reputation, and business expansion, while concealing or minimizing material adverse facts concerning the safety of the Company’s lithium battery and inadequate forecasting processes, which were already taking a material toll on E-vehicle (the “EV”) sales revenue. The plaintiff alleged when the Company filed a form NT 10-Q on August 14, 2025, which disclosed a 32% decrease in net revenues primarily driven by a decline in total units sold, attributed by the Company to “recent lithium-battery accidents involving E-Bikes and E-Scooters”; the price of Company’s common stock declined dramatically by about 87% in a single day, resulting in economic loss for the plaintiff and the class. The relief sought includes determining that the action may be maintained as a class action, requiring defendants to pay damages sustained by the plaintiff and the class, and awarding pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, along with reasonable attorneys’ fees, expert fees, and other costs, with the monetary damages sought being certified to be in excess of $150,000. On May 22, 2026, the lead plaintiff in the Class Action filed an Amended Complaint. The Company's response to the Amended Complaint is due August 14, 2026. Given the preliminary stage of the lawsuit and the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the Company cannot determine with certainty the outcome of the Class Action at this time. Any potential loss associated with the action is not reasonably estimable at this early stage. The Company did not accrue any material loss contingencies in this respect as of March 31, 2026. *Shareholder derivative actions instituted on October 28, 2025 and November 17, 2025* On October 28, 2025, a shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed purportedly on behalf of the Company, as nominal defendant, against certain of its current and former directors and officers in the United States Court for the Eastern District of New York, captioned Flynn v. Ou et al, No. 1:25-cv-06036 (E.D.N.Y.) (the “Flynn Action”). The complaint filed in the Flynn Action alleges claims for alleged breach of fiduciary duties and gross mismanagement, among others. On November 17, 2025, an additional putative shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed purportedly on behalf of the Company, as nominal defendant, against certain of its current and former directors and officers in the United States Court for the Eastern District of New York, captioned Shah v. Ou et al, No. 1:25-cv-06372 (E.D.N.Y.) (the “Shah Action”). The complaint filed in the Shah Action alleges claims for alleged breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, waste of corporate assets, gross mismanagement, abuse of control, among others. The Flynn Action and Shah Action are based on the same alleged facts and circumstances as the Class Action and seek damages from the current and former directors and officers and an order directing the Company and current and former directors and officers to take actions to reform and improve corporate governance and internal procedures. On December 9, 2025, the Court consolidated the Flynn Action and Shah Action into a single consolidated action captioned In re Fly-E Group, Inc. Stockholder Derivative Litigation, No. 1:25-cv-06036 (E.D.N.Y.)(the “Consolidated Derivative Action”), and appointed co-lead counsel. The current and former director and officer defendants dispute the allegations in the complaints and intend to vigorously defend against all claims. Given the preliminary stage of the lawsuit and the inherent uncertainties of litigation, we cannot determine with certainty the outcome of the Consolidated Derivative Action at this time. *SEC Investigation* On January 21, 2026, the Company was notified by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) that it has initiated an investigation involving the Company. The Company has not been provided with substantive details regarding the investigation, and is fully cooperating with the investigation. UL Litigation On or about March 12, 2025, UL LLC (“UL”) filed a complaint against the Company, along with the Company’s certain subsidiaries and certain individuals, in the Eastern District of New York (the “Complaint”). The Complaint alleges that the Company improperly used UL’s trademark by claiming certain products were certified by UL. On May 21, 2025, the Company and UL entered into a settlement and release agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”) on mutually acceptable settlement terms. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the Company agreed to pay UL an aggregate amount of $1,000,000 before November 30, 2025 (Refer to Note 8 — Accrued Expenses and other payables). During the year ended March 31, 2026, the Company paid $1,000,000 to UL. Inflation Inflationary factors, such as increases in personnel and overhead costs, could impair the Company’s operating results. Although the Company does not believe that inflation has had a material impact on the Company’s financial position or results of operations to date, a high rate of inflation in the future may have an adverse effect on the Company’s ability to maintain current levels of gross margin and operating expenses as a percentage of sales revenue if the revenues do not increase with such increased costs.

Commitments and Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2026

Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract]

13 — COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Commitments

The Company has not entered any off-balance sheet financial guarantees or other off-balance sheet commitments to guarantee the payment obligations of any third parties. The Company has not entered any derivative contracts that are indexed to its shares and classified as shareholder’s equity or that are not reflected in its consolidated financial statements. Furthermore, the Company does not have any retained or contingent interest in assets transferred to an unconsolidated entity that serves as credit, liquidity or market risk support to such entity. The Company does not have any variable interest in any unconsolidated entity that provides financing, liquidity, market risk or credit support to itself or engages in leasing, hedging or product development services with itself.

Contingencies

Legal

The Company is a party to certain legal proceedings, as well as certain asserted and unasserted claims. Amounts accrued, as well as the total amount of reasonably possible losses with respect to such matters, individually and in the aggregate, are not deemed to be material to the consolidated financial statements.

The Company’s products and other production facilities as well as the packaging, storage, distribution, advertising and labeling of its products, are subject to extensive legal and regulatory requirements. For example, pursuant to the DMV registration requirement, the Company must satisfy the DMV Registration requirements and conduct required testing for all of its products sold in U.S. Loss of or failure to renew or obtain necessary permits, licenses, registrations, or certificates could prevent the Company from legally selling its products in the U.S. If the Company were found to be in violation of applicable laws and regulations, it could be subject to administrative punishment, including fines, injunctions, recalls or asset seizures, as well as potential criminal sanctions, any of which could have a material adverse effect on its business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. As of the date hereof, the Company believes it is in compliance with the relevant regulations in the U.S.

Federal securities class action instituted on September 8, 2025

On September 8, 2025, a federal securities class action was filed in the United States District Court, Eastern District of New York, by plaintiff Dino Kurt, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, against defendants, the Company, chief executive officer (the “CEO”) Zhou Ou, and former chief financial officer (the “CFO”) Shiwen Feng (the “Class Action”). The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 during the class period spanning from July 15, 2025, to August 14, 2025. The plaintiff claims that defendants provided materially false and misleading positive statements about revenue growth, brand reputation, and business expansion, while concealing or minimizing material adverse facts concerning the safety of the Company’s lithium battery and inadequate forecasting processes, which were already taking a material toll on E-vehicle (the “EV”) sales revenue. The plaintiff alleged when the Company filed a form NT 10-Q on August 14, 2025, which disclosed a 32% decrease in net revenues primarily driven by a decline in total units sold, attributed by the Company to “recent lithium-battery accidents involving E-Bikes and E-Scooters”; the price of Company’s common stock declined dramatically by about 87% in a single day, resulting in economic loss for the plaintiff and the class.

The relief sought includes determining that the action may be maintained as a class action, requiring defendants to pay damages sustained by the plaintiff and the class, and awarding pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, along with reasonable attorneys’ fees, expert fees, and other costs, with the monetary damages sought being certified to be in excess of $150,000.

On May 22, 2026, the lead plaintiff in the Class Action filed an Amended Complaint. The Company's response to the Amended Complaint is due August 14, 2026. Given the preliminary stage of the lawsuit and the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the Company cannot determine with certainty the outcome of the Class Action at this time.

Any potential loss associated with the action is not reasonably estimable at this early stage. The Company did not accrue any material loss contingencies in this respect as of March 31, 2026.

Shareholder derivative actions instituted on October 28, 2025 and November 17, 2025

On October 28, 2025, a shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed purportedly on behalf of the Company, as nominal defendant, against certain of its current and former directors and officers in the United States Court for the Eastern District of New York, captioned Flynn v. Ou et al, No. 1:25-cv-06036 (E.D.N.Y.) (the “Flynn Action”). The complaint filed in the Flynn Action alleges claims for alleged breach of fiduciary duties and gross mismanagement, among others. On November 17, 2025, an additional putative shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed purportedly on behalf of the Company, as nominal defendant, against certain of its current and former directors and officers in the United States Court for the Eastern District of New York, captioned Shah v. Ou et al, No. 1:25-cv-06372 (E.D.N.Y.) (the “Shah Action”). The complaint filed in the Shah Action alleges claims for alleged breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, waste of corporate assets, gross mismanagement, abuse of control, among others.

The Flynn Action and Shah Action are based on the same alleged facts and circumstances as the Class Action and seek damages from the current and former directors and officers and an order directing the Company and current and former directors and officers to take actions to reform and improve corporate governance and internal procedures. On December 9, 2025, the Court consolidated the Flynn Action and Shah Action into a single consolidated action captioned In re Fly-E Group, Inc. Stockholder Derivative Litigation, No. 1:25-cv-06036 (E.D.N.Y.)(the “Consolidated Derivative Action”), and appointed co-lead counsel. The current and former director and officer defendants dispute the allegations in the complaints and intend to vigorously defend against all claims. Given the preliminary stage of the lawsuit and the inherent uncertainties of litigation, we cannot determine with certainty the outcome of the Consolidated Derivative Action at this time.

SEC Investigation

On January 21, 2026, the Company was notified by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) that it has initiated an investigation involving the Company. The Company has not been provided with substantive details regarding the investigation, and is fully cooperating with the investigation.

UL Litigation

On or about March 12, 2025, UL LLC (“UL”) filed a complaint against the Company, along with the Company’s certain subsidiaries and certain individuals, in the Eastern District of New York (the “Complaint”). The Complaint alleges that the Company improperly used UL’s trademark by claiming certain products were certified by UL. On May 21, 2025, the Company and UL entered into a settlement and release agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”) on mutually acceptable settlement terms. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the Company agreed to pay UL an aggregate amount of $1,000,000 before November 30, 2025 (Refer to Note 8 — Accrued Expenses and other payables). During the year ended March 31, 2026, the Company paid $1,000,000 to UL.

Inflation

Inflationary factors, such as increases in personnel and overhead costs, could impair the Company’s operating results. Although the Company does not believe that inflation has had a material impact on the Company’s financial position or results of operations to date, a high rate of inflation in the future may have an adverse effect on the Company’s ability to maintain current levels of gross margin and operating expenses as a percentage of sales revenue if the revenues do not increase with such increased costs.