Legal, Environmental and Other Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Jul. 03, 2026
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Legal, Environmental and Other Contingencies	Legal, Environmental and Other Contingencies The Company assesses the probability of an unfavorable outcome of all its material litigation, claims or assessments to determine whether a liability had been incurred and whether it is probable that one or more future events will occur confirming the fact of the loss. In the event that an unfavorable outcome is determined to be probable and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated, the Company establishes an accrual for the litigation, claim or assessment. In addition, in the event an unfavorable outcome is determined to be less than probable, but reasonably possible, the Company will disclose an estimate of the possible loss or range of such loss; however, when a reasonable estimate cannot be made, the Company will provide disclosure to that effect. Litigation is inherently uncertain and may result in adverse rulings or decisions. Additionally, the Company may enter into settlements or be subject to judgments that may, individually or in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect on its results of operations. Accordingly, actual results could differ materially. Litigation Lambeth Magnetic Structures LLC v. Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., et al. On April 29, 2016, Lambeth Magnetic Structures LLC filed a complaint against Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc. and Seagate Technology LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,128,988, seeking damages as well as additional relief. The district court entered judgment in favor of Seagate on April 19, 2022. On September 17, 2025, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated the District Court’s judgment and remanded for a new trial on infringement and enablement. The Company believes the asserted claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend this case. Seagate Technology LLC, et al. v. Headway Technologies, Inc., et al. On February 18, 2020, Seagate Technology LLC and certain of its affiliates, (collectively, the “Seagate Entities”) filed a complaint alleging violations of federal and state antitrust laws as well as breach of contract in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against suppliers of HDD suspension assemblies, including NHK Spring Co. Ltd. (“NHK”), TDK Corporation (“TDK”) and Hutchinson Technology Inc (“HTI”). The Seagate Entities seek to recover damages suffered as a result of the suspension assembly suppliers’ conduct, and additional relief permitted by law. On April 8, 2022, the court dismissed with prejudice all claims against TDK and HTI after the Seagate Entities settled with those defendants. On August 2, 2022, NHK Spring Co. Ltd. filed a motion for Partial Summary Judgment under the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvement Act (“FTAIA Motion”). On November 17, 2023, the Court granted NHK’s FTAIA Motion on reconsideration, denying the majority of Seagate’s antitrust claims. On January 8, 2026, the Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court’s decision and remanded the case to the District Court, allowing Seagate’s antitrust claims to proceed. The Ninth Circuit subsequently denied NHK’s petition for rehearing, and NHK has since petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for certiorari. In re Seagate Technology Holdings plc Securities Litigation. On July 10, 2023 and July 26, 2023, two securities class action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against Seagate Technology Holdings plc, Dr. William D. Mosley, and Gianluca Romano. The cases were consolidated on September 25, 2023. On September 12, 2024, the plaintiffs filed the currently operative complaint, asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5, and a class period between September 14, 2020 and April 19, 2023, inclusive. On April 3, 2026, the parties agreed to a settlement in principle to resolve the matter for a total amount of $175 million, approximately $70 million of which will be paid by the Company’s insurers. The parties have since executed a stipulation of settlement. The Company recorded a charge of $105 million which was included in Legal settlement in its Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income. On July 7, 2026, the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement, and a final approval hearing will be held on November 17, 2026. Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 v. Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology (US) Holding, Inc., Seagate Technology (Thailand) Limited, Seagate Singapore International Headquarters Ltd., Seagate Technology (Netherlands) B.V. On March 15, 2024, a patent infringement action was filed by Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 (“IP Bridge”) against Seagate in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The case was subsequently transferred to the District Court of Minnesota on September 4, 2024. There are eight patents-in-suit. The Company believes the asserted claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend this case. BIS Settlement On April 18, 2023, the Company’s subsidiaries Seagate Technology LLC and Seagate Singapore International Headquarters Pte. Ltd (collectively, “Seagate”), entered into a settlement agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”) with the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) that resolves BIS’ allegations regarding Seagate’s sales of hard disk drives to Huawei between August 17, 2020 and September 29, 2021. Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, Seagate has agreed to pay $300 million to BIS in quarterly installments of $15 million over the course of five years beginning October 31, 2023. Seagate has also agreed to complete three audits of its compliance with the license requirements of Section 734.9 of the U.S. Export Administration Regulations (“EAR”), including one audit by an unaffiliated third-party consultant chosen by Seagate with expertise in U.S. export control laws and two internal audits. The Company accrued a charge of $300 million during fiscal year 2023, of which $45 million and $75 million were included in Accrued expenses and Other non-current liabilities, respectively, on the Consolidated Balance Sheets as of July 3, 2026. For fiscal year 2026, $75 million was paid and reported as an outflow from operating activities in its Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows. Environmental Matters The Company’s operations are subject to U.S. and foreign laws and regulations relating to the protection of the environment, including those governing discharges of pollutants into the air and water, the management and disposal of hazardous substances and wastes and the cleanup of contaminated sites. Some of the Company’s operations require environmental permits and controls to prevent and reduce air and water pollution, and these permits are subject to modification, renewal and revocation by issuing authorities. Some environmental laws, such as the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (as amended, the “Superfund” law) and its state equivalents, can impose liability for the cost of cleanup of contaminated sites upon any of the current or former site owners or operators or upon parties who sent waste to these sites, regardless of whether the owner or operator owned the site at the time of the release of hazardous substances or the lawfulness of the original disposal activity. The Company has been identified as a responsible or potentially responsible party at several sites. At each of these sites, the Company has an assigned portion of the financial liability based on the type and amount of hazardous substances disposed of by each party at the site and the number of financially viable parties. The Company has fulfilled its responsibilities at some of these sites and remains involved in only a few at this time. While the Company’s ultimate costs in connection with these sites is difficult to predict with complete accuracy, based on its current estimates of cleanup costs and its expected allocation of these costs, the Company does not expect costs in connection with these sites to be material. The Company may be subject to various state, federal and international laws and regulations governing the environment, including those restricting the presence of certain substances in electronic products. For example, the European Union (“EU”) enacted the Restriction of the Use of Certain Hazardous Substances in Electrical and Electronic Equipment (2011/65/EU), which prohibits the use of certain substances, including lead, in certain products, including disk drives and server storage products, put on the market after July 1, 2006. Similar legislation has been or may be enacted in other jurisdictions, including in the United States, Canada, Mexico, Taiwan, China, Japan and others. The EU REACH Directive (Registration, Evaluation, Authorization, and Restriction of Chemicals, EC 1907/2006) also restricts substances of very high concern in products. If the Company or its suppliers fail to comply with the substance restrictions, recycle content requirements or other environmental requirements as they are enacted worldwide, it could have a materially adverse effect on the Company’s business. Other Matters From time to time, arising in the normal course of business, the Company is involved in a number of other judicial, regulatory or administrative proceedings and investigations incidental to its business, and the Company expects to be involved in such proceedings and investigations arising in the normal course of its business in the future. Although occasional adverse decisions or settlements may occur, the Company believes that the final disposition of such matters will not have a material adverse effect on its financial position or results of operations.

The Company assesses the probability of an unfavorable outcome of all its material litigation, claims or assessments to determine whether a liability had been incurred and whether it is probable that one or more future events will occur confirming the fact of the loss. In the event that an unfavorable outcome is determined to be probable and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated, the Company establishes an accrual for the litigation, claim or assessment. In addition, in the event an unfavorable outcome is determined to be less than probable, but reasonably possible, the Company will disclose an estimate of the possible loss or range of such loss; however, when a reasonable estimate cannot be made, the Company will provide disclosure to that effect. Litigation is inherently uncertain and may result in adverse rulings or decisions. Additionally, the Company may enter into settlements or be subject to judgments that may, individually or in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect on its results of operations. Accordingly, actual results could differ materially.

Lambeth Magnetic Structures LLC v. Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., et al. On April 29, 2016, Lambeth Magnetic Structures LLC filed a complaint against Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc. and Seagate Technology LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,128,988, seeking damages as well as additional relief. The district court entered judgment in favor of Seagate on April 19, 2022. On September 17, 2025, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated the District Court’s judgment and remanded for a new trial on infringement and enablement. The Company believes the asserted claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend this case.

Seagate Technology LLC, et al. v. Headway Technologies, Inc., et al. On February 18, 2020, Seagate Technology LLC and certain of its affiliates, (collectively, the “Seagate Entities”) filed a complaint alleging violations of federal and state antitrust laws as well as breach of contract in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against suppliers of HDD suspension assemblies, including NHK Spring Co. Ltd. (“NHK”), TDK Corporation (“TDK”) and Hutchinson Technology Inc (“HTI”). The Seagate Entities seek to recover damages suffered as a result of the suspension assembly suppliers’ conduct, and additional relief permitted by law. On April 8, 2022, the court dismissed with prejudice all claims against TDK and HTI after the Seagate Entities settled with those defendants. On August 2, 2022, NHK Spring Co. Ltd. filed a motion for Partial Summary Judgment under the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvement Act (“FTAIA Motion”). On November 17, 2023, the Court granted NHK’s FTAIA Motion on reconsideration, denying the majority of Seagate’s antitrust claims. On January 8, 2026, the Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court’s decision and remanded the case to the District Court, allowing Seagate’s antitrust claims to proceed. The Ninth Circuit subsequently denied NHK’s petition for rehearing, and NHK has since petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for certiorari.

In re Seagate Technology Holdings plc Securities Litigation. On July 10, 2023 and July 26, 2023, two securities class action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against Seagate Technology Holdings plc, Dr. William D. Mosley, and Gianluca Romano. The cases were consolidated on September 25, 2023. On September 12, 2024, the plaintiffs filed the currently operative complaint, asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5, and a class period between September 14, 2020 and April 19, 2023, inclusive. On April 3, 2026, the parties agreed to a settlement in principle to resolve the matter for a total amount of $175 million, approximately $70 million of which will be paid by the Company’s insurers. The parties have since executed a stipulation of settlement. The Company recorded a charge of $105 million which was included in Legal settlement in its Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income. On July 7, 2026, the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement, and a final approval hearing will be held on November 17, 2026.

Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 v. Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology (US) Holding, Inc., Seagate Technology (Thailand) Limited, Seagate Singapore International Headquarters Ltd., Seagate Technology (Netherlands) B.V. On March 15, 2024, a patent infringement action was filed by Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 (“IP Bridge”) against Seagate in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The case was subsequently transferred to the District Court of Minnesota on September 4, 2024. There are eight patents-in-suit. The Company believes the asserted claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend this case.

On April 18, 2023, the Company’s subsidiaries Seagate Technology LLC and Seagate Singapore International Headquarters Pte. Ltd (collectively, “Seagate”), entered into a settlement agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”) with the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) that resolves BIS’ allegations regarding Seagate’s sales of hard disk drives to Huawei between August 17, 2020 and September 29, 2021. Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, Seagate has agreed to pay $300 million to BIS in quarterly installments of $15 million over the course of five years beginning October 31, 2023. Seagate has also agreed to complete three audits of its compliance with the license requirements of Section

The Company accrued a charge of $300 million during fiscal year 2023, of which $45 million and $75 million were included in Accrued expenses and Other non-current liabilities, respectively, on the Consolidated Balance Sheets as of July 3, 2026. For fiscal year 2026, $75 million was paid and reported as an outflow from operating activities in its Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows.

The Company’s operations are subject to U.S. and foreign laws and regulations relating to the protection of the environment, including those governing discharges of pollutants into the air and water, the management and disposal of hazardous substances and wastes and the cleanup of contaminated sites. Some of the Company’s operations require environmental permits and controls to prevent and reduce air and water pollution, and these permits are subject to modification, renewal and revocation by issuing authorities.

Some environmental laws, such as the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (as amended, the “Superfund” law) and its state equivalents, can impose liability for the cost of cleanup of contaminated sites upon any of the current or former site owners or operators or upon parties who sent waste to these sites, regardless of whether the owner or operator owned the site at the time of the release of hazardous substances or the lawfulness of the original disposal activity. The Company has been identified as a responsible or potentially responsible party at several sites. At each of these sites, the Company has an assigned portion of the financial liability based on the type and amount of hazardous substances disposed of by each party at the site and the number of financially viable parties. The Company has fulfilled its responsibilities at some of these sites and remains involved in only a few at this time.

While the Company’s ultimate costs in connection with these sites is difficult to predict with complete accuracy, based on its current estimates of cleanup costs and its expected allocation of these costs, the Company does not expect costs in connection with these sites to be material.

The Company may be subject to various state, federal and international laws and regulations governing the environment, including those restricting the presence of certain substances in electronic products. For example, the European Union (“EU”) enacted the Restriction of the Use of Certain Hazardous Substances in Electrical and Electronic Equipment (2011/65/EU), which prohibits the use of certain substances, including lead, in certain products, including disk drives and server storage products, put on the market after July 1, 2006. Similar legislation has been or may be enacted in other jurisdictions, including in the United States, Canada, Mexico, Taiwan, China, Japan and others. The EU REACH Directive (Registration, Evaluation, Authorization, and Restriction of Chemicals, EC 1907/2006) also restricts substances of very high concern in products. If the Company or its suppliers fail to comply with the substance restrictions, recycle content requirements or other environmental requirements as they are enacted worldwide, it could have a materially adverse effect on the Company’s business.

From time to time, arising in the normal course of business, the Company is involved in a number of other judicial, regulatory or administrative proceedings and investigations incidental to its business, and the Company expects to be involved in such proceedings and investigations arising in the normal course of its business in the future. Although occasional adverse decisions or settlements may occur, the Company believes that the final disposition of such matters will not have a material adverse effect on its financial position or results of operations.