Other commitments. In the ordinary course of business, the Company enters into multi-year agreements to purchase sponsorships with event organizers, resorts and athletes as part of its marketing efforts; software licenses related to its financial and IT systems; debt agreements, which may contain minimum returns; non-cancellable non-returnable purchase agreements for hardware products and components, and various other contractual commitments. If non-cancellable non-returnable purchase agreements include commitments for quantities in excess of our future demand forecast, the Company records a liability consistent with the valuation of its excess and obsolete inventory. As of June 30, 2026, the Company’s total undiscounted future expected obligations under multi-year agreements described above with terms longer than one year was $165.8 million. As discussed in Note 1 Summary of business and significant accounting policies, communication from the Company’s memory suppliers regarding planned reductions in the production of the memory used in its products caused a reduction in forecasted sales volumes of certain products which also impacted the Company’s expected utilization of materials subject to a non-cancelable non-refundable purchase commitment. As a result, the Company accrued $39.6 million for expected underutilization of such materials as of June 30, 2026.

Legal proceedings and investigations. Since 2015, non-practicing entity Contour IP Holding LLC (CIPH) and its affiliates initiated legal action against the Company in federal district court alleging patent infringement by the Company’s camera products. Following a jury trial in Q4 2025 and post-trial motion practice, on March 15, 2026, the Court entered judgment of invalidity of all asserted claims of CIPH’s patents. The Court vacated the $8.2 million jury award. As a result, all CIPH’s patent claims were found to be invalid, not infringed, or both, and no damages were awarded. CIPH has filed a notice of appeal. Further procedural history of the litigation is available in prior SEC filings.

lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against Arashi Vision Inc., and Arashi Vision (U.S.) LLC, both d/b/a Insta360 (Insta360). The complaint and lawsuit each allege infringement of certain GoPro patents related to the Company’s cameras and digital imaging technology. On February 27, 2026, the ITC found that Insta360 had infringed GoPro’s valid design patent and issued a limited exclusion order and cease and desist order prohibiting Insta360 from continued importation or sale after importation of its infringing Ace, Ace Pro, and Ace Pro 2 action cameras. The ITC also found that some claims of certain utility patents were shown not to be infringed and some claims of certain patents were shown to be invalid. GoPro is considering whether to appeal certain of these rulings. Separately, Insta360 filed inter partes review (IPR) petitions seeking to challenge the validity of several GoPro patents at the Patent Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The PTAB largely found that Insta360 had failed to establish unpatentability of most of GoPro’s patent claims. The PTAB found only partial unpatentability on two patents, and GoPro has taken steps to challenge these rulings. Insta360 has also filed three patent infringement actions against the Company in China (Jiangsu High Court, Changsha Intermediate Court IP Tribunal, and Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court), each of which the Company believes lacks merit and intends to defend against. GoPro’s district court litigation, including its claims for damages on the same patents asserted in the ITC, remains stayed pending any appeals from the ITC ruling. The ITC ruling is not binding on the federal district court.

The Company regularly evaluates the associated developments of the legal proceedings described above, as well as other legal proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of business. While litigation is inherently uncertain, based on the currently available information, the Company is unable to determine a loss or a range of loss, and does not believe the ultimate cost to resolve these matters will have a material adverse effect on its business, financial condition, cash flows or results of operations.

Indemnifications. The Company has entered into indemnification agreements with its directors and executive officers which requires the Company to indemnify its directors and executive officers against liabilities that may arise by reason of their status or service. In addition, in the ordinary course of business, the Company enters into agreements that contain a variety of representations and warranties and provide for general indemnification. The Company’s exposure under these agreements is unknown because it involves claims that may be made against the Company in the future but have not yet been made. It is not possible to determine the maximum potential amount under these indemnification agreements due to the Company’s limited history with indemnification claims and the unique facts and circumstances involved in each particular agreement. As of June 30, 2026, the Company has not paid any claims, nor has it been required to defend any action related to its indemnification obligations. However, the Company may record charges in the future as a result of these indemnification obligations.