COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2026
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES The Company may be party to a variety of litigation, claims, legal or regulatory proceedings, inquiries, and investigations including but not limited to matters arising out of the ordinary course of business, including those related to advertising, marketing or commercial practices, personal injury and property damage, intellectual property rights, employment, tax and insurance, and matters relating to compliance with applicable laws and regulations. Responding to these matters, even those that are ultimately non-meritorious, may require the Company to incur significant expense and devote significant resources. While it is not possible to predict the ultimate resolution of these matters, management believes, based upon examination of currently available information, experience to date, and advice from legal counsel, that, after taking into account existing insurance coverage and amounts already provided for, the currently pending legal proceedings against the Company will not have a material adverse impact on the Company's consolidated statements of operations, balance sheets, or cash flows. Liabilities for loss contingencies arising from claims, assessments, litigation, fines, and penalties are recorded when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount can be reasonably estimated. Legal costs incurred in connection with loss contingencies are expensed as incurred. Other than with respect to the matters described below, the Company believes there is no litigation pending that could have, individually or in the aggregate, a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated statements of operations, balance sheets or cash flows. The Company believes it has made appropriate and adequate reserves and accruals for its current contingencies and the likelihood of a material loss beyond amounts accrued is remote. Based on information presently known to management, the Company has not accrued a loss for the matters described below because the criteria for accrual have not been met. For those matters where the Company believes a loss is reasonably possible, the Company is unable to estimate the amount or range of reasonably possible loss, if any, at this time. The Company evaluates these matters each reporting period and will record an accrual, or disclose an estimate of the possible loss or range of loss, in the period in which such information becomes available. The Company is involved in legal proceedings from time to time arising in the normal course of business. While any outcome related to such legal proceedings cannot be predicted with certainty, other than the matters discussed below, the Company believes that the outcome of these proceedings will not have a material impact on the Company’s financial position, results of operations, or liquidity. City of Miami Fire Fighters On November 12, 2025 and December 5, 2025, two putative class action complaints were filed by purported stockholders against the Company and its executives, respectively, asserting claims under the federal securities laws. The first complaint is captioned Rosenblum v. Primo Brands Corp. et al, Case No. 3:25-cv-01902, and was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. The second complaint is captioned City of Miami Fire Fighters’ and Police Officers’ Retirement Trust v. Primo Brands Corp., et al, Case No. 8:25-cv-03328, and was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. The Rosenblum action was voluntarily dismissed on or about January 8, 2026, while the City of Miami Fire Fighters action is ongoing. In the City of Miami Fire Fighters complaint, the plaintiff, a purported stockholder of the Company, asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) against the Company and certain of its officers, and claims under Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”) against the Company, its current and former directors and officers, and the underwriters of its March secondary offerings. The plaintiff asserts the Exchange Act claims on behalf of purchasers of Primo Water Corporation common stock between June 17, 2024, and November 8, 2024, and purchasers of the Company’s common stock between November 11, 2024, and November 6, 2025. The plaintiff asserts the Securities Act claims against all purchasers of the Company’s common stock traceable to the March 2025 secondary public offering. In support of these claims, the plaintiff alleges that the Company made false and/or misleading statements regarding the integration of Primo Water Corporation and the parent of BlueTriton Brands, Inc. to form the Company. The complaint does not specify damages claimed in the action. Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA), interested parties were required to file motions for appointment as lead plaintiff and lead counsel by January 12, 2026. On February 4, 2026, the Court granted the motions by Heavy & General Laborers’ Locals 472 & 172 Pension & Annuity Funds Providence Employees Retirement System to be appointed as lead plaintiffs, with Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd appointed as lead counsel. On April 6, 2026, the lead plaintiffs filed a new complaint in the action, asserting the same claims on behalf of the same putative class of investors. The Company and the other defendants in the action moved to dismiss the action on June 5, 2026. The parties are briefing that motion. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself and its directors and officers in this action. There can be no assurance regarding the outcome of this case. Torres On December 17, 2025, a Company stockholder filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut asserting derivative claims on behalf of the Company against sixteen of its current and former directors and officers under federal and state law. This derivative complaint is captioned Torres v. Foss, et al, Case No. 3:25-cv-02108. In this complaint, the plaintiff asserts claims of breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and corporate waste under state law, as well as claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 10b-5 and 14a-9 promulgated thereunder. This complaint leverages the allegations made in the City of Miami Fire Fighters securities class action complaint referenced herein. The complaint does not specify damages claimed in the action. On January 6, 2026, the plaintiff filed waivers of service executed by all the defendants, which set a February 17, 2026 deadline for the defendants to respond to the complaint. On February 26, 2026, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the action without prejudice. Hamilton On December 16, 2025, Joseph Hamilton and 9 other named plaintiffs (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed a putative consumer class action seeking damages, equitable relief, and injunctive relief against the Company and BlueTriton Brands, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”) in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. 2:25-cv-11874. Plaintiffs claim violations of California False Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500, et seq., California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq., and New York General Business Law §§ 349, 350, and 527-a; violations of consumer protection statutes in 11 states (CA, NY, CT, FL, CO, GA, IL, IN, NE, NJ, OH); and related claims for unjust enrichment, negligence, and conversion. In their complaint, Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants’ subscription-based water delivery services failed to deliver water as promised, resulting in missed or delayed scheduled deliveries, incomplete orders, and a failure to replace empty bottles. Plaintiffs claim these issues stemmed from facility closures and staff reductions following the November 8, 2024 merger of Primo Water Corporation and the parent of BlueTriton. Plaintiffs further allege that the Defendants made unauthorized charges for goods and services never delivered and imposed improper fees, such as penalties for equipment the Defendants failed to pick up. Lastly, Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants made subscription cancellations difficult, often continuing to charge customers even after they requested to terminate service. Plaintiffs seek to represent potentially 600,000 customers nationwide affected by these issues. The complaint does not specify damages claimed in the action. The Company’s subscription-based water delivery service includes mandatory arbitration and class action waiver clauses in their Service Agreements and online Terms and Conditions. The case remains in its initial stages. On January 30, 2026, the Court approved the parties’ joint stipulation setting forth a briefing schedule for Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and motion to dismiss the complaint. On March 5, 2026, the Company filed its motion to compel arbitration. On April 2, 2026, the Company filed its motion to dismiss the complaint. Both motions have been fully briefed and submitted. On July 2, 2026, the Court issued a notice adjourning the hearing on the motions scheduled for July 9, 2026, and marking the motions as under submission. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this action. There can be no assurance regarding the outcome of this case. Patane On August 15, 2017, Mark Patane and 11 other named plaintiffs (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) commenced a putative class action against Nestlé Waters North America, Inc. (“Nestlé Waters”) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut (the “Court”), alleging that Poland Spring® product labels fraudulently represent the product to be natural spring water. Plaintiffs have asserted claims of common law fraud, violations of certain state consumer protection laws, and, for home and office customers, breach of contract. As a result of Triton Water Holdings’ acquisition of all of the equity interests of Nestlé Waters North America Holdings, Inc., along with the acquisition of certain assets and assumption of certain liabilities of Nestlé Canada Inc. from Nestlé S.A. (the “Nestlé Acquisition”), Nestlé Waters was renamed BlueTriton Brands, Inc. (“BlueTriton Brands”), and BlueTriton Brands is continuing to defend against the lawsuit. Through successive dispositive rulings, claims under Vermont and Rhode Island law, certain Connecticut statutory claims, certain New York, Connecticut, and Maine claims, Plaintiffs' claims for injunctive relief, and claims of certain Plaintiffs barred by the final judgment in Ramsey v. Nestlé Waters N. Am., Case No. 03-CHK-817 (Ill. Cir. Ct. 16th Cir. Kane Cnty.), have been dismissed in whole or in part. On December 30, 2024, the Court granted in part and denied in part BlueTriton Brands' motion for summary judgment. On January 6, 2025, both Plaintiffs and BlueTriton Brands moved for reconsideration of portions of that decision. On June 9, 2025, the Court denied the parties’ respective motions for reconsideration. On July 9, 2025, Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification, seeking to certify two classes and ten derivative state subclasses separately consisting of retail customers and home and office customers. BlueTriton Brands opposed class certification and moved under Daubert to preclude the opinions of Plaintiffs' damages experts. The parties completed class certification and Daubert briefing in September 2025 and subsequently filed notices of supplemental authority. On March 28, 2026, the Court denied BlueTriton Brands' Daubert motions and, in a separate order, denied Plaintiffs' motion for class certification without prejudice because Plaintiffs failed to specify proposed classes with an end date. The Court permitted Plaintiffs to file a renewed motion redefining the proposed classes with an end date and addressing ascertainability and directed the parties to meet and confer regarding remaining claims and a potential settlement referral. On April 21, 2026, Plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for class certification proposing a class-period end date of December 30, 2022 (the close of fact discovery). On May 12, 2026, BlueTriton Brands responded, arguing that the class period should end on August 15, 2017 (the complaint filing date), and moved for leave to further supplement the class-certification record. The same day, the parties filed a joint notice identifying the remaining claims and advising the Court that they had scheduled mediation for September 3, 2026 before a private mediator. Plaintiffs filed a reply in support of the renewed class certification motion on May 26, 2026, and a response to BlueTriton Brands' motion for leave on June 2, 2026. The Court has not yet ruled on Plaintiffs’ renewed motion for class certification or BlueTriton Brands’ motion for leave. Plaintiffs are seeking compensatory damages and/or statutory damages. For the common law fraud claims, Plaintiffs purport to compute damages by multiplying the alleged price premium attributable to the alleged “spring water” misrepresentation by total dollar sales of Poland Spring® still water products during the class period, while statutory damages normally are determined by multiplying a statutorily established amount by the number of violations. The quantification of Plaintiffs’ recoverable damages is not reasonably determinable at this stage of the litigation. No trial date has been set. The Company intends to defend itself vigorously. Purchase Commitments The Company may enter into unconditional purchase obligations with third party suppliers in the ordinary course of business. Such arrangements are entered into to secure subscriptions, utilities, services and supplies vital to the Company's operations and ability to serve its customers. The Company has various long-term supply and service contracts which may require that the Company purchase minimum quantities, for a minimum term, at fixed or variable rates. Letters of Credit As of June 30, 2026, the Company had $163.4 million of letters of credit outstanding.

The Company may be party to a variety of litigation, claims, legal or regulatory proceedings, inquiries, and investigations including but not limited to matters arising out of the ordinary course of business, including those related to advertising, marketing or commercial practices, personal injury and property damage, intellectual property rights, employment, tax and insurance, and matters relating to compliance with applicable laws and regulations. Responding to these matters, even those that are ultimately non-meritorious, may require the Company to incur significant expense and devote significant resources. While it is not possible to predict the ultimate resolution of these matters, management believes, based upon examination of currently available information, experience to date, and advice from legal counsel, that, after taking into account existing insurance coverage and amounts already provided for, the currently pending legal proceedings against the Company will not have a material adverse impact on the Company's consolidated statements of operations, balance sheets, or cash flows.

Liabilities for loss contingencies arising from claims, assessments, litigation, fines, and penalties are recorded when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount can be reasonably estimated. Legal costs incurred in connection with loss contingencies are expensed as incurred. Other than with respect to the matters described below, the Company believes there is no litigation pending that could have, individually or in the aggregate, a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated statements of operations, balance sheets or cash flows. The Company believes it has made appropriate and adequate reserves and accruals for its current contingencies and the likelihood of a material loss beyond amounts accrued is remote.

Based on information presently known to management, the Company has not accrued a loss for the matters described below because the criteria for accrual have not been met. For those matters where the Company believes a loss is reasonably possible, the Company is unable to estimate the amount or range of reasonably possible loss, if any, at this time. The Company evaluates these matters each reporting period and will record an accrual, or disclose an estimate of the possible loss or range of loss, in the period in which such information becomes available.

The Company is involved in legal proceedings from time to time arising in the normal course of business. While any outcome related to such legal proceedings cannot be predicted with certainty, other than the matters discussed below, the Company believes that the outcome of these proceedings will not have a material impact on the Company’s financial position, results of operations, or liquidity.

On November 12, 2025 and December 5, 2025, two putative class action complaints were filed by purported stockholders against the Company and its executives, respectively, asserting claims under the federal securities laws. The first complaint is captioned Rosenblum v. Primo Brands Corp. et al, Case No. 3:25-cv-01902, and was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. The second complaint is captioned City of Miami Fire Fighters’ and Police Officers’ Retirement Trust v. Primo Brands Corp., et al, Case No. 8:25-cv-03328, and was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. The Rosenblum action was voluntarily dismissed on or about January 8, 2026, while the City of Miami Fire Fighters action is ongoing.

In the City of Miami Fire Fighters complaint, the plaintiff, a purported stockholder of the Company, asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) against the Company and certain of its officers, and claims under Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”) against the Company, its current and former directors and officers, and the underwriters of its March secondary offerings. The plaintiff asserts the Exchange Act claims on behalf of purchasers of Primo Water Corporation common stock between June 17, 2024, and

November 8, 2024, and purchasers of the Company’s common stock between November 11, 2024, and November 6, 2025. The plaintiff asserts the Securities Act claims against all purchasers of the Company’s common stock traceable to the March 2025 secondary public offering. In support of these claims, the plaintiff alleges that the Company made false and/or misleading statements regarding the integration of Primo Water Corporation and the parent of BlueTriton Brands, Inc. to form the Company. The complaint does not specify damages claimed in the action.

Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA), interested parties were required to file motions for appointment as lead plaintiff and lead counsel by January 12, 2026. On February 4, 2026, the Court granted the motions by Heavy & General Laborers’ Locals 472 & 172 Pension & Annuity Funds Providence Employees Retirement System to be appointed as lead plaintiffs, with Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd appointed as lead counsel. On April 6, 2026, the lead plaintiffs filed a new complaint in the action, asserting the same claims on behalf of the same putative class of investors. The Company and the other defendants in the action moved to dismiss the action on June 5, 2026. The parties are briefing that motion.

On December 17, 2025, a Company stockholder filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut asserting derivative claims on behalf of the Company against sixteen of its current and former directors and officers under federal and state law. This derivative complaint is captioned Torres v. Foss, et al, Case No. 3:25-cv-02108. In this complaint, the plaintiff asserts claims of breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and corporate waste under state law, as well as claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 10b-5 and 14a-9 promulgated thereunder. This complaint leverages the allegations made in the City of Miami Fire Fighters securities class action complaint referenced herein. The complaint does not specify damages claimed in the action.

On January 6, 2026, the plaintiff filed waivers of service executed by all the defendants, which set a February 17, 2026 deadline for the defendants to respond to the complaint. On February 26, 2026, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the action without prejudice.

On December 16, 2025, Joseph Hamilton and 9 other named plaintiffs (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed a putative consumer class action seeking damages, equitable relief, and injunctive relief against the Company and BlueTriton Brands, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”) in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. 2:25-cv-11874.

Plaintiffs claim violations of California False Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500, et seq., California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq., and New York General Business Law §§ 349, 350, and 527-a; violations of consumer protection statutes in 11 states (CA, NY, CT, FL, CO, GA, IL, IN, NE, NJ, OH); and related claims for unjust enrichment, negligence, and conversion.

In their complaint, Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants’ subscription-based water delivery services failed to deliver water as promised, resulting in missed or delayed scheduled deliveries, incomplete orders, and a failure to replace empty bottles. Plaintiffs claim these issues stemmed from facility closures and staff reductions following the November 8, 2024 merger of Primo Water Corporation and the parent of BlueTriton. Plaintiffs further allege that the Defendants made unauthorized charges for goods and services never delivered and imposed improper fees, such as penalties for equipment the Defendants failed to pick up. Lastly, Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants made subscription cancellations difficult, often continuing to charge customers even after they requested to terminate service. Plaintiffs seek to represent potentially 600,000 customers nationwide affected by these issues. The complaint does not specify damages claimed in the action. The Company’s subscription-based water delivery service includes mandatory arbitration and class action waiver clauses in their Service Agreements and online Terms and Conditions.

The case remains in its initial stages. On January 30, 2026, the Court approved the parties’ joint stipulation setting forth a briefing schedule for Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and motion to dismiss the complaint. On March 5, 2026, the Company filed its motion to compel arbitration. On April 2, 2026, the Company filed its motion to dismiss the complaint. Both motions have been fully briefed and submitted. On July 2, 2026, the Court issued a notice adjourning the hearing on the motions scheduled for July 9, 2026, and marking the motions as under submission.

On August 15, 2017, Mark Patane and 11 other named plaintiffs (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) commenced a putative class action against Nestlé Waters North America, Inc. (“Nestlé Waters”) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut (the “Court”), alleging that Poland Spring® product labels fraudulently represent the product to be natural spring water. Plaintiffs have asserted claims of common law fraud, violations of certain state consumer protection laws, and, for home and office customers, breach of contract. As a result of Triton Water Holdings’ acquisition of all of the equity interests of Nestlé Waters North America Holdings, Inc., along with the acquisition of certain assets and assumption of certain liabilities of Nestlé Canada Inc. from Nestlé S.A. (the “Nestlé Acquisition”), Nestlé Waters was renamed BlueTriton Brands, Inc. (“BlueTriton Brands”), and BlueTriton Brands is continuing to defend against the lawsuit.

Through successive dispositive rulings, claims under Vermont and Rhode Island law, certain Connecticut statutory claims, certain New York, Connecticut, and Maine claims, Plaintiffs' claims for injunctive relief, and claims of certain Plaintiffs barred by the final judgment in Ramsey v. Nestlé Waters N. Am., Case No. 03-CHK-817 (Ill. Cir. Ct. 16th Cir. Kane Cnty.), have been dismissed in whole or in part.

On December 30, 2024, the Court granted in part and denied in part BlueTriton Brands' motion for summary judgment. On January 6, 2025, both Plaintiffs and BlueTriton Brands moved for reconsideration of portions of that decision. On June 9, 2025, the Court denied the parties’ respective motions for reconsideration.

On July 9, 2025, Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification, seeking to certify two classes and ten derivative state subclasses separately consisting of retail customers and home and office customers. BlueTriton Brands opposed class certification and moved under Daubert to preclude the opinions of Plaintiffs' damages experts. The parties completed class certification and Daubert briefing in September 2025 and subsequently filed notices of supplemental authority.

On March 28, 2026, the Court denied BlueTriton Brands' Daubert motions and, in a separate order, denied Plaintiffs' motion for class certification without prejudice because Plaintiffs failed to specify proposed classes with an end date. The Court permitted Plaintiffs to file a renewed motion redefining the proposed classes with an end date and addressing ascertainability and directed the parties to meet and confer regarding remaining claims and a potential settlement referral.

On April 21, 2026, Plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for class certification proposing a class-period end date of December 30, 2022 (the close of fact discovery). On May 12, 2026, BlueTriton Brands responded, arguing that the class period should end on August 15, 2017 (the complaint filing date), and moved for leave to further supplement the class-certification record. The same day, the parties filed a joint notice identifying the remaining claims and advising the Court that they had scheduled mediation for September 3, 2026 before a private mediator. Plaintiffs filed a reply in support of the renewed class certification motion on May 26, 2026, and a response to BlueTriton Brands' motion for leave on June 2, 2026. The Court has not yet ruled on Plaintiffs’ renewed motion for class certification or BlueTriton Brands’ motion for leave.

Plaintiffs are seeking compensatory damages and/or statutory damages. For the common law fraud claims, Plaintiffs purport to compute damages by multiplying the alleged price premium attributable to the alleged “spring water” misrepresentation by total dollar sales of Poland Spring® still water products during the class period, while statutory damages normally are determined by multiplying a statutorily established amount by the number of violations. The quantification of Plaintiffs’ recoverable damages is not reasonably determinable at this stage of the litigation. No trial date has been set. The Company intends to defend itself vigorously.

The Company may enter into unconditional purchase obligations with third party suppliers in the ordinary course of business. Such arrangements are entered into to secure subscriptions, utilities, services and supplies vital to the Company's operations and ability to serve its customers. The Company has various long-term supply and service contracts which may require that the Company purchase minimum quantities, for a minimum term, at fixed or variable rates.