Commitments and contingencies	3 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2026
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and contingencies	Commitments and contingencies Legal contingencies The Company is from time to time subject to, and is currently involved in, legal proceedings, claims, regulatory matters and litigation arising in the ordinary course of business, including the matters described below. While it is not possible to determine the outcomes, the Company believes based on its current knowledge that the resolution of all such pending matters will not, either individually or in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, results of operations or financial condition or cash flows. The Company records a liability for legal proceedings when it determines it is probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. The Company can provide no assurance as to the scope and outcome of these matters and cannot reasonably estimate any loss or range of loss, if any, that may arise from these matters. Due to the early stage of the Securities Class Action and Derivative Matters described below, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the potential range of loss, if any. The Company disputes the allegations and intends to vigorously defend against them. Securities Class Action and Stockholder Derivative Matters On March 6, 2025 and April 8, 2025, the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, and its Chief Financial Officer (collectively, “Defendants”) were named as defendants in separate purported securities class action complaints filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California by plaintiffs Luke Rottman and Boston Retirement System. The complaints in both purported securities class actions allege that Defendants made false or misleading statements in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and seek damages and other relief. On May 28, 2025, the court consolidated the two putative securities class action suits, and appointed Boston Retirement System and Metropolitan Employee Benefit System as lead plaintiffs. Lead plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint on July 23, 2025. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint on September 5, 2025. On February 4, 2026, the Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss as to nearly all of plaintiffs’ challenged statements, but found that plaintiffs adequately stated a claim as to statements made on November 21, 2024. Lead Plaintiffs did not file a second amended complaint, and Defendants filed an answer responding to the consolidated complaint on April 3, 2026. The case is in the the midst of discovery. On July 24, 2026, lead plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. Defendants’ opposition to plaintiff’s motion for class certification is due September 25, 2026. On March 28, 2025 and April 22, 2025, derivative action complaints were filed purportedly on behalf of the Company by separate putative shareholders Joseph Falconio and Robbie Bosworth against certain of the Company’s current and former officers and directors in the United States District Court for the District of Northern California. The complaints allege that certain of the Company’s officers and directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the Company’s purported issuance of false and misleading statements concerning the financial condition of the Company. Premised upon the same allegations, the complaints also assert derivative causes of action under the Exchange Act, including Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, under Sections 24400 and 25500 of California’s Corporations Code, and for waste and unjust enrichment. The latter filed complaint likewise asserts derivative claims under the Exchange Act, including Sections 14(a) and 20(a), and for abuse of control and gross mismanagement, and seeks contribution under Sections 10(b) and 12D of the Exchange Act. On May 19, 2025, the parties subsequently filed a stipulation to consolidate the two cases and to appoint lead counsel, which the court granted on July 3, 2025. The consolidated action is currently stayed pending the resolution of the securities class action. On May 19, 2025, putative shareholder Mikhail Venikov filed a derivative lawsuit purportedly on behalf of the Company against certain of the Company’s current and former officers and directors in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Plaintiff Venikov asserts derivative claims under the Exchange Act, including Sections 14(a), 10(b), and 20(a), in addition to asserting claims for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment. The action is currently stayed pending the resolution of the securities class action. On April 9, 2026, putative shareholder Joyce Iwaida filed a derivative lawsuit purportedly on behalf of the Company against certain of the Company’s current and former officers and directors in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Plaintiff Iwaida asserts derivative claims under the Exchange Act, including Sections 14(a) and 10(b), in addition to asserting claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and waste of corporate assets. The case is in its early stages and will be consolidated with the Venikov matter and stayed pending resolution of the securities class action. On April 14, 2026, putative shareholder Felipe Peerally filed a derivative lawsuit purportedly on behalf of the Company against certain of the Company’s current and former officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Plaintiff Peerally previously sent a litigation demand to the Company’s board of directors (the “Board”), which the Board had deferred pending related securities and stockholder matters. Plaintiff Peerally asserts derivative claims under the Exchange Act, including Sections 14(a), 10(b), and 20(a), in addition to asserting claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, waste of corporate assets, and abuse of control. The Company disagrees with these allegations (including that the demand was refused) and intends to negotiate a stay pending the resolution of the securities class action. On July 20, 2026, the Court issued an order relating this case to the consolidated derivative action in the United States District Court for the District of Northern California and the securities class action. The Company believes that it has substantial defenses to the allegations made in the lawsuits and intends to vigorously defend against them. Tariff Matters On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court of the United States (the “Supreme Court”) invalidated tariffs previously imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (“IEEPA”). The ruling did not address the availability, timing or mechanics of any potential refunds related to tariffs previously collected, and the outcome of any related administrative or legal processes remains uncertain. In April 2026, the U.S. Court of International Trade (“CIT”) issued an order for the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to treat the IEEPA Tariffs as unlawful and administer affected import entries accordingly. As a result of the order, the CBP must recalculate duties without the IEEPA tariffs and ensure that importers of record receive the benefit of the Supreme Court ruling in the form of refunds for such amounts paid and interest. In June 2026, the US administration appealed the CIT order to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Multiple legal challenges to the Section 122 tariffs have been filed, and on May 7, 2026, the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled that the Section 122 tariffs are unlawful; however, the court's injunction applies only to the named plaintiffs, and the tariffs remain in effect for all other importers pending appeal. As of June 30, 2026, the Company paid approximately $60.3 million of IEEPA Tariffs. Of this amount, the Company received tariff refunds of approximately $51.1 million ($50.1 million and $1.0 million recognized as a reduction in cost of sales and inventory, respectively) plus $2.1 million in applicable interest (recognized as interest income) during the three months ended June 30, 2026. The Company is evaluating the impact of the Supreme Court ruling and the subsequent order issued by the CIT, and is monitoring related developments from the CBP regarding its plan to process refunds to importers of record, including the launch on April 20, 2026 of the CBP's Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries (“CAPE”) system for submitting refund claims, as well as the administration’s appeal of the CIT’s order. As of June 30, 2026, the Company has not recorded a receivable related to potential additional refunds for IEEPA Tariffs paid by the Company. The ultimate resolution of this matter, including the potential outcome of the administration’s appeal of the CIT’s order, the extent and manner in which costs previously incurred and paid may be recoverable through the CBP, and the timing of any potential recovery remains uncertain. Immediately after the Supreme Court’s ruling on IEEPA tariffs, the US administration implemented new tariffs under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 (“Trade Act”), which permits temporary import surcharges subject to statutory limits and duration requirements. Multiple legal challenges to the Section 122 tariffs have been filed. On May 7, 2026, the CIT ruled that the Section 122 tariffs are unlawful; however, the court's injunction applies only to the named plaintiffs, and the tariffs remained in effect for all other importers pending appeal. The Section 122 tariffs automatically expire within 150 days, absent Congressional action. On July 23, 2026, the US administration also finalized new tariffs under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 on goods from 60 trading economies for their failure to impose and effectively enforce a prohibition on the importation of goods produced with forced labor. These tariffs, effective July 24, 2026, immediately replaced the temporary Section 122 duties, which expire after 150 days. Rates for these Section 301 tariffs range from 10% to 12.5%.

The Company is from time to time subject to, and is currently involved in, legal proceedings, claims, regulatory matters and litigation arising in the ordinary course of business, including the matters described below. While it is not possible to determine the outcomes, the Company believes based on its current knowledge that the resolution of all such pending matters will not, either individually or in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, results of operations or financial condition or cash flows. The Company records a liability for legal proceedings when it determines it is probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. The Company can provide no assurance as to the scope and outcome of these matters and cannot reasonably estimate any loss or range of loss, if any, that may arise from these matters. Due to the early stage of the Securities Class Action and Derivative Matters described below, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the potential range of loss, if any. The Company disputes the allegations and intends to vigorously defend against them.

On March 6, 2025 and April 8, 2025, the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, and its Chief Financial Officer (collectively, “Defendants”) were named as defendants in separate purported securities class action complaints filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California by plaintiffs Luke Rottman and Boston Retirement System. The complaints in both purported securities class actions allege that Defendants made false or misleading statements in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and seek damages and other relief. On May 28, 2025, the court consolidated the two putative securities class action suits, and appointed Boston Retirement System and Metropolitan Employee Benefit System as lead plaintiffs. Lead plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint on July 23, 2025. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint on September 5, 2025. On February 4, 2026, the Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss as to nearly all of plaintiffs’ challenged statements, but found that plaintiffs adequately stated a claim as to statements made on November 21, 2024. Lead Plaintiffs did not file a second amended complaint, and Defendants filed an answer responding to the consolidated complaint on April 3, 2026. The case is in the the midst of discovery. On July 24, 2026, lead plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. Defendants’ opposition to plaintiff’s motion for class certification is due September 25, 2026.

On March 28, 2025 and April 22, 2025, derivative action complaints were filed purportedly on behalf of the Company by separate putative shareholders Joseph Falconio and Robbie Bosworth against certain of the Company’s current and former officers and directors in the United States District Court for the District of Northern California. The complaints allege that certain of the Company’s officers and directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the Company’s purported issuance of false and misleading statements concerning the financial condition of the Company. Premised upon the same allegations, the complaints also assert derivative causes of action under the Exchange Act, including Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, under Sections 24400 and 25500 of California’s Corporations Code, and for waste and unjust enrichment. The latter filed complaint likewise asserts derivative claims under the Exchange Act, including Sections 14(a) and 20(a), and for abuse of control and gross mismanagement, and seeks contribution under Sections 10(b) and 12D of the Exchange Act. On May 19, 2025, the parties subsequently filed a stipulation to consolidate the two cases and to appoint lead counsel, which the court granted on July 3, 2025. The consolidated action is currently stayed pending the resolution of the securities class action.

On May 19, 2025, putative shareholder Mikhail Venikov filed a derivative lawsuit purportedly on behalf of the Company against certain of the Company’s current and former officers and directors in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Plaintiff Venikov asserts derivative claims under the Exchange Act, including Sections 14(a), 10(b), and 20(a), in addition to asserting claims for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment. The action is currently stayed pending the resolution of the securities class action.

On April 9, 2026, putative shareholder Joyce Iwaida filed a derivative lawsuit purportedly on behalf of the Company against certain of the Company’s current and former officers and directors in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Plaintiff Iwaida asserts derivative claims under the Exchange Act, including Sections 14(a) and 10(b), in addition to asserting claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and waste of corporate assets. The case is in its early stages and will be consolidated with the Venikov matter and stayed pending resolution of the securities class action.

On April 14, 2026, putative shareholder Felipe Peerally filed a derivative lawsuit purportedly on behalf of the Company against certain of the Company’s current and former officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Plaintiff Peerally previously sent a litigation demand to the Company’s board of directors (the “Board”), which the Board had deferred pending related securities and stockholder matters. Plaintiff Peerally asserts derivative claims under the Exchange Act, including Sections 14(a), 10(b), and 20(a), in addition to asserting claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, waste of corporate assets, and abuse of control. The Company disagrees with these allegations (including that the demand was refused) and intends to negotiate a stay pending the resolution of the securities class action. On July 20, 2026, the Court issued an order relating this case to the consolidated derivative action in the United States District Court for the District of Northern California and the securities class action.

On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court of the United States (the “Supreme Court”) invalidated tariffs previously imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (“IEEPA”). The ruling did not address the availability, timing or mechanics of any potential refunds related to tariffs previously collected, and the outcome of any related administrative or legal processes remains uncertain. In April 2026, the U.S. Court of International Trade (“CIT”) issued an order for the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to treat the IEEPA Tariffs as unlawful and administer affected import entries accordingly. As a result of the order, the CBP must recalculate duties without the IEEPA tariffs and ensure that importers of record receive the benefit of the Supreme Court ruling in the form of refunds for such amounts paid and interest. In June 2026, the US administration appealed the CIT order to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Multiple legal challenges to the Section 122 tariffs have been filed, and on May 7, 2026, the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled that the Section 122 tariffs are unlawful; however, the court's injunction applies only to the named plaintiffs, and the tariffs remain in effect for all other importers pending appeal. As of June 30, 2026, the Company paid approximately $60.3 million of IEEPA Tariffs. Of this amount, the Company received tariff refunds of approximately $51.1 million ($50.1 million and $1.0 million recognized as a reduction in cost of sales and inventory, respectively) plus $2.1 million in applicable interest (recognized as interest income) during the three months ended June 30, 2026.

The Company is evaluating the impact of the Supreme Court ruling and the subsequent order issued by the CIT, and is monitoring related developments from the CBP regarding its plan to process refunds to importers of record, including the launch on April 20, 2026 of the CBP's Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries (“CAPE”) system for submitting refund claims, as well as the administration’s appeal of the CIT’s order. As of June 30, 2026, the Company has not recorded a receivable related to potential additional refunds for IEEPA Tariffs paid by the Company. The ultimate resolution of this matter, including the potential outcome of the administration’s appeal of the CIT’s order, the extent and manner in which

Immediately after the Supreme Court’s ruling on IEEPA tariffs, the US administration implemented new tariffs under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 (“Trade Act”), which permits temporary import surcharges subject to statutory limits and duration requirements. Multiple legal challenges to the Section 122 tariffs have been filed. On May 7, 2026, the CIT ruled that the Section 122 tariffs are unlawful; however, the court's injunction applies only to the named plaintiffs, and the tariffs remained in effect for all other importers pending appeal. The Section 122 tariffs automatically expire within 150 days, absent Congressional action.

On July 23, 2026, the US administration also finalized new tariffs under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 on goods from 60 trading economies for their failure to impose and effectively enforce a prohibition on the importation of goods produced with forced labor. These tariffs, effective July 24, 2026, immediately replaced the temporary Section 122 duties, which expire after 150 days. Rates for these Section 301 tariffs range from 10% to 12.5%.