Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2026
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 7: Commitments and Contingencies Legal Matters and Routine Proceedings On April 18, 2024, Plaintiff Timothy Fitchett (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against the Company in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, on behalf of himself and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated. Plaintiff alleges that the Company violated Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law by displaying “regular” strikethrough prices which the Company allegedly never charged. On May 13, 2024, the Company removed the matter to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania in Pittsburgh. The Company successfully opposed the Plaintiff's motion to remand the case back to the Court of Common Pleas. On the face of the Complaint, Plaintiff is seeking damages for himself and he is also seeking a liability determination for members of the proposed class. The matter has been stayed pending a ruling on the motion to vacate that is pending in the case listed below. The Company denies liability in this matter and is defending the action. The Company cannot determine materiality or estimate a range of potential liability, if any, at this time if the Company were determined to be liable. On February 14, 2025, Plaintiffs Ashley Bird, Tyler Dvornski, and Tiffany Hughes (“Plaintiffs”) filed an action in the Northern District of New York on behalf of themselves and a class of others similarly situated alleging that the Company misrepresented that its products were on sale by showing a “regular” strikethrough price, when the products were never sold for the strikethrough price. Plaintiffs allege that by using this “false reference price” or “false discount,” the Company artificially inflated its prices and charged consumers more than it otherwise could. Plaintiffs allege that these purported practices violate New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350 as well as California’s Unfair Competition Law and California’s False Advertising Law. After the Company made a motion to dismiss the Complaint, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint, which the Company moved to dismiss. The motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint was granted. Thereafter, Plaintiffs filed a motion to vacate the dismissal Order and amend the Amended Complaint. That motion has been fully briefed and remains pending. In addition to the matters described above, the Company may from time to time be involved in various other claims and lawsuits in the ordinary course of business, which could include claims related to products, product warranties, contracts, employment, intellectual property, consumer protection, pharmacy and other regulatory matters. The Company records a liability in its financial statements for these matters when a loss is known or considered probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated.

Commitments and Contingencies

3 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2026

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Note 7: Commitments and Contingencies

Legal Matters and Routine Proceedings

On April 18, 2024, Plaintiff Timothy Fitchett (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against the Company in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, on behalf of himself and on behalf of a class of others similarly

situated. Plaintiff alleges that the Company violated Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law by displaying “regular” strikethrough prices which the Company allegedly never charged. On May 13, 2024, the Company removed the matter to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania in Pittsburgh. The Company successfully opposed the Plaintiff's motion to remand the case back to the Court of Common Pleas. On the face of the Complaint, Plaintiff is seeking damages for himself and he is also seeking a liability determination for members of the proposed class. The matter has been stayed pending a ruling on the motion to vacate that is pending in the case listed below. The Company denies liability in this matter and is defending the action. The Company cannot determine materiality or estimate a range of potential liability, if any, at this time if the Company were determined to be liable.

On February 14, 2025, Plaintiffs Ashley Bird, Tyler Dvornski, and Tiffany Hughes (“Plaintiffs”) filed an action in the Northern District of New York on behalf of themselves and a class of others similarly situated alleging that the Company misrepresented that its products were on sale by showing a “regular” strikethrough price, when the products were never sold for the strikethrough price. Plaintiffs allege that by using this “false reference price” or “false discount,” the Company artificially inflated its prices and charged consumers more than it otherwise could. Plaintiffs allege that these purported practices violate New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350 as well as California’s Unfair Competition Law and California’s False Advertising Law. After the Company made a motion to dismiss the Complaint, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint, which the Company moved to dismiss. The motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint was granted. Thereafter, Plaintiffs filed a motion to vacate the dismissal Order and amend the Amended Complaint. That motion has been fully briefed and remains pending.

In addition to the matters described above, the Company may from time to time be involved in various other claims and lawsuits in the ordinary course of business, which could include claims related to products, product warranties, contracts, employment, intellectual property, consumer protection, pharmacy and other regulatory matters. The Company records a liability in its financial statements for these matters when a loss is known or considered probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated.