Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2026
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Legal Matters The Company is a party to certain claims, suits, and proceedings which arise in the ordinary course and conduct of its business and has certain unresolved claims pending, the outcomes of which are not determinable at this time. The Company records a liability when it believes that it is probable that a loss will be incurred and the amount can be reasonably estimated. If the Company determines that a loss is reasonably possible and the loss or range of loss can be reasonably estimated, the Company discloses the possible loss or range of loss. Given the unpredictable nature of legal proceedings, there is a reasonable possibility that an unfavorable resolution of one or more such proceedings could in the future materially affect the results of operations, cash flows, or financial position in a particular period. The Company records legal fee expenses associated with such matters when the relevant services are provided. Skillz v. AviaGames On February 9, 2024, a federal jury in San Jose, California issued a verdict in favor of Skillz in a patent infringement action Skillz brought against a privately-held mobile gaming company, AviaGames, on April 5, 2021 (“Patent Case”). The jury found in favor of Skillz on all issues, determining AviaGames willfully infringed Skillz’s U.S. Patent No. 9,649,564, entitled “Peer-to-Peer Wagering Platform” (the “‘564 patent”) and awarding Skillz its full damages request of $42.9 million. After the jury verdict was issued, Skillz requested certain post-trial relief, including that the Court permanently enjoin AviaGames from continuing to infringe the ‘564 patent, award Skillz its attorneys’ fees due to the exceptional nature of the case, and treble the damages awarded by the jury. In addition, Skillz, along with game developer Big Run Studios, Inc. (“Big Run”), brought a separate case against AviaGames for false advertising, copyright infringement, and violations of California’s state unfair competition law in federal court in San Francisco, California (“Unfair Competition Case”). On April 13, 2024, Skillz, Big Run, and AviaGames entered into a settlement agreement with respect to both the Patent Case and Unfair Competition Case pending against AviaGames (the “Litigation Settlement”). In exchange for dismissal of both actions and other settlement terms, AviaGames agreed to pay Skillz and Big Run a total of $80.0 million. On April 12, 2024, the Company and Big Run Studio entered into a Side Letter Agreement providing that a portion of the AviaGames settlement funds allocated to Big Run Studio be utilized to repay the outstanding principal and accrued interest under a loan and security agreement totaling $2.0 million. During the year ended December 31, 2024, the Company and Big Run collectively received $50.0 million from AviaGames pursuant to the settlement agreement. Of the $50.0 million received, Skillz received $48.0 million, $2.0 million of which was for settlement of the amount outstanding under the loan and security agreement with Big Run. Of the $4.0 million allocated to Big Run under the Side Letter Agreement, Big Run received $2.0 million net of the settlement of the loan and security agreement. Beginning in March of 2025, AviaGames is required to pay Skillz an additional $7.5 million annually over a four-year period as royalty payments for AviaGames’ license of the ‘564 patent and its patent family; no portion of these payments are due to Big Run. During the three months ended March 31, 2026 and 2025, the Company recorded a gain from the Litigation Settlement of $7.5 million when payment was received. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the Company is scheduled to receive annual payments of $7.5 million each year through March 2028. Since gain contingencies are not recognized until realized, the Company recognizes amounts under the settlement as a gain when payment is received. The remaining scheduled payments of $15.0 million, consisting of $7.5 million payable in each of March 2027 and March 2028, have not been recognized in the accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements. Skillz v. Tether Studios, et al. On August 29, 2025, the Company received a notice (“Notice”) from Tether Studios, LLC (“Tether”) indicating that Tether is terminating all of its agreements with the Company (“Tether Agreements”), including the Company’s Developer Terms and Conditions of Service, as amended, effective as of September 1, 2025. The Company believes the termination notice for cause is invalid and that Tether breached its obligations under the Tether Agreements. Certain of the Tether Agreements restrict the removal of two games covered thereby, Solitaire Cube and 21 Blitz, from the Company’s platform for at least 18 months following termination. Following receipt of the Notice, on September 1, 2025, the Company filed suit in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, seeking injunctive and declaratory relief in relation to Tether’s breach of the Tether Agreements. On October 3, 2025, the Company filed a first amended complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware alleging additional breaches of contract and damages. On October 10, 2025, Tether filed its answer to Skillz’s first amended complaint and also asserted counterclaims against Skillz for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith trademark infringement, and under Delaware’s deceptive trade practices act. On March 3, 2026, Skillz filed a second amended complaint, adding Aim Games, LLC (“Aim Games”) to the complaint, which Skillz alleges is an alter ego or controlled affiliate of Tether. Skillz alleges that Aim Games impermissibly hosted monetization services for Tether’s games in violation of the Tether Agreements. Skillz asserted breach of contract claims against both Tether and Aim Games, and tortious interference claims against Aim Games. Skillz seeks equitable relief and damages arising out of its claims. The deadline to serve written discovery requests was June 17, 2026, with document production due July 30, 2026. Fact discovery is scheduled to conclude on September 2, 2026, and expert discovery is due October 28, 2026. Trial is currently scheduled for December 2-4, 2026, but is likely to be delayed until 2027, as the parties have scheduled a court-ordered mediation for September 9, 2026. Based on the information known by the Company, any such estimated loss range is not possible to determine. Hanna v. Paradise, et al. In March 2024, an alleged stockholder filed a putative derivative complaint, Hanna v. Paradise, et al., No. 2024-0228-KSJM, in the Delaware Court of Chancery, purportedly on behalf of Skillz against certain of Skillz’s current and former officers, directors, and certain stockholders. The complaint alleges breaches of fiduciary duties, aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duties, and unjust enrichment arising out of Skillz’s March 2021 underwritten secondary public offering. The complaint asserts that certain of the director and officer defendants breached fiduciary duties to Skillz by allegedly inappropriately selling stock as part of the public offering while in possession of material, non-public information, that the stockholder defendants aided and abetted these alleged breaches of fiduciary duties, and that all defendants were unjustly enriched by their sales in the public offering. The complaint seeks unspecified damages and restitution for Skillz from the defendants and the payment of costs and attorneys’ fees. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on June 6, 2024. Plaintiffs responded by voluntarily dismissing 55 of the stockholder defendants but opposing the motion as to all remaining defendants. Briefing on the motion to dismiss was completed at the end of August 2024. The court heard oral arguments on the motion to dismiss on January 7, 2025. On July 3, 2025, the court issued a ruling converting defendants’ motion to dismiss on demand futility grounds to a motion for summary judgment and ordered limited discovery on the independence of a former Skillz director. The court stayed consideration of defendants’ other dismissal arguments given its ultimate ruling on the demand futility issue could moot these other dismissal arguments. On June 24, 2026, the plaintiff filed a Stipulation and Order of Voluntary Dismissal, with prejudice, dismissing the lawsuit in its entirety. Skillz vs. Voodoo SAS, et al. On July 1, 2024, Skillz filed suit against Voodoo SAS and two affiliate entities, Esport Newco SAS and Esport Newco US Corp. (collectively, "Voodoo") in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. In its complaint, Skillz asserts violations of the Lanham Act's prohibition of false advertising and New York's General Business Law § 349 based on, inter alia, Skillz’s allegations that Voodoo advertises its mobile games offered through the “Blitz Win Cash” application as “fair,” “skill-based,” and for “real players only” when in reality Voodoo is fixing the outcome of its tournaments through the use of computer algorithms or “bots.” On August 22, 2024, Skillz brought a motion for a preliminary injunction, and on September 18, 2024, Voodoo moved to dismiss the complaint or, in the alternative, to strike certain allegations. Skillz’s and Voodoo’s motions were both mooted when Skillz amended its complaint on October 2, 2024. On October 8, 2024, Skillz renewed its motion for a preliminary injunction and expedited discovery based on the amended complaint, and Voodoo moved to dismiss the amended complaint on October 16, 2024. Voodoo’s motion to dismiss is fully briefed and awaiting a decision by the court. The court denied Skillz’s motion for preliminary injunction. On July 23, 2025, the court denied Voodoo’s motion to stay discovery pending a decision on the motion to dismiss and to bifurcate proceedings to focus on damages only. The court entered an order on April 9, 2026 extending fact discovery to close on August 14, 2026 and depositions to be completed by November 20, 2026. Both parties have served written discovery requests and are proceeding with fact discovery. Skillz vs. Papaya Gaming, Ltd., et al. In March 2024, Skillz sued Papaya Gaming, Ltd. and Papaya Gaming, Inc. (collectively, “Papaya”) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging false advertising under the Lanham Act and unfair business practices in connection with Papaya’s marketing of its mobile games as “fair” and “skill-based” despite Papaya’s deployment of algorithmic competitors (“bots”) in its games that win cash prizes for Papaya’s benefit. In June 2024, the court denied Papaya’s motion to dismiss Skillz’s complaint in its entirety. In September 2024, Papaya filed amended counterclaims against Skillz alleging that Skillz also engaged in false advertising and unfair business practices for purportedly allowing bots in games on Skillz’s platform, defamation for Skillz’s alleged involvement in a non-profit organization that collected and published data related to customer complaints to state attorney generals related to Papaya’s and other companies’ alleged fraudulent bot use, and purported trademark and copyright infringement of design elements of certain games, among other things. In March 2025, the court dismissed Papaya’s defamation counterclaims and severed Papaya’s intellectual property claims. Following the court’s rulings, Papaya voluntarily dismissed its intellectual property claims against Skillz. On October 27, 2025, the court denied Papaya’s motion for summary judgment on Skillz’s claims. The court also denied Papaya’s motion to exclude Skillz’s damages and survey experts. On November 21, 2025, the court granted Skillz’s motion for summary judgment of all of Papaya’s remaining counterclaims and affirmative defenses. On February 12, 2026, the court granted in part and denied in part Skillz’s motion to exclude Papaya’s damages and technical experts. The court also granted in part and denied in part Papaya’s motion to exclude Skillz’s technical expert. On April 23, 2026, a jury in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York found Papaya liable for false advertising and returned awards of $420 million in actual damages, $719 million in advisory profits-based disgorgement, and $652 million in advisory cost-savings disgorgement, with the court to determine which recovery theory will apply. Post-trial motions, oppositions, and replies were filed by the court’s June 19, 2026 deadline. The court issued an opinion and order awarding $719 million in disgorgement of unjust profits, plus approximately $10.1 million in fees and costs to Skillz on July 27, 2026. A final judgment in the matter was entered on July 31, 2026. The Company intends to vigorously pursue full collection of the judgment; however, no assurance can be given as to the timing or amount of any ultimate recovery, including in light of any appeal or further proceedings. Mitchell, et al. v. Skillz Platform Inc. On January 21, 2026, a putative class action was filed in the Northern District of California, Kel Mitchell et al., v. Skillz Platform Inc., Case No. 4:26-cv-00674-AMO. Plaintiffs individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, alleges that Skillz violated California’s Unfair Competition Law, New York law for Deceptive Acts and Practices, Texas’s Deceptive Trade Practices Act, made negligent misrepresentations, and is liable for unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs’ claims arise out of allegations that Skillz purportedly made misrepresentations about not using bots in competitions on Skillz’s platform, misrepresented the evenness of Skillz’s matchmaking, and made misrepresentations about a user’s ability to withdraw cash. Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief that Skillz’s conduct violates applicable state law, compensatory and economic damages, damages for mental anguish, statutory, treble, and punitive damages, restitution of the money lost by the class, interest, costs, and attorneys’ fees, and injunctive relief. Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on March 31, 2026. Skillz filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint on May 12, with the matter to be heard on August 6, 2026. Based on the information known by the Company, any such estimated loss is immaterial. Indirect Taxes The Company is subject to indirect taxes, including sales and use tax in the United States and value-added tax in certain foreign jurisdictions. The Company had indirect tax liabilities totaling $8.4 million and $12.6 million as of June 30, 2026 and December 31, 2025, respectively, associated with indirect taxes based on currently available information and assumptions that the Company believes are reasonable based on an evaluation of relevant factors. Indirect tax liabilities are adjusted considering changing facts and circumstances, such as the closing of a tax examination, further interpretation of existing tax law, or new tax law. The Company recognizes changes to estimates if they are estimable and probable that our positions would not be sustainable upon examination by tax authorities. Although management believes our recorded liabilities are reasonable, no assurance can be given that the final tax outcomes of these matters will not be different from those which our liabilities are based on. The Company’s application of the revenue code for indirect taxes in certain jurisdictions, including those within the United States, may be challenged by tax authorities in those jurisdictions. The Company is in the process of filing self-disclosure returns in unregistered jurisdictions. Any associated assessments may result in additional tax liabilities. The Company does not currently anticipate that any such assessments will result in a material increase in the liabilities. The Company is currently undergoing an examination in the State of Washington regarding its indirect tax liability.

Company determines that a loss is reasonably possible and the loss or range of loss can be reasonably estimated, the Company discloses the possible loss or range of loss. Given the unpredictable nature of legal proceedings, there is a reasonable possibility that an unfavorable resolution of one or more such proceedings could in the future materially affect the results of operations, cash flows, or financial position in a particular period. The Company records legal fee expenses associated with such matters when the relevant services are provided.

On February 9, 2024, a federal jury in San Jose, California issued a verdict in favor of Skillz in a patent infringement action Skillz brought against a privately-held mobile gaming company, AviaGames, on April 5, 2021 (“Patent Case”). The jury found in favor of Skillz on all issues, determining AviaGames willfully infringed Skillz’s U.S. Patent No. 9,649,564, entitled “Peer-to-Peer Wagering Platform” (the “‘564 patent”) and awarding Skillz its full damages request of $42.9 million. After the jury verdict was issued, Skillz requested certain post-trial relief, including that the Court permanently enjoin AviaGames from continuing to infringe the ‘564 patent, award Skillz its attorneys’ fees due to the exceptional nature of the case, and treble the damages awarded by the jury. In addition, Skillz, along with game developer Big Run Studios, Inc. (“Big Run”), brought a separate case against AviaGames for false advertising, copyright infringement, and violations of California’s state unfair competition law in federal court in San Francisco, California (“Unfair Competition Case”). On April 13, 2024, Skillz, Big Run, and AviaGames entered into a settlement agreement with respect to both the Patent Case and Unfair Competition Case pending against AviaGames (the “Litigation Settlement”). In exchange for dismissal of both actions and other settlement terms, AviaGames agreed to pay Skillz and Big Run a total of $80.0 million. On April 12, 2024, the Company and Big Run Studio entered into a Side Letter Agreement providing that a portion of the AviaGames settlement funds allocated to Big Run Studio be utilized to repay the outstanding principal and accrued interest under a loan and security agreement totaling $2.0 million.

During the year ended December 31, 2024, the Company and Big Run collectively received $50.0 million from AviaGames pursuant to the settlement agreement. Of the $50.0 million received, Skillz received $48.0 million, $2.0 million of which was for settlement of the amount outstanding under the loan and security agreement with Big Run. Of the $4.0 million allocated to Big Run under the Side Letter Agreement, Big Run received $2.0 million net of the settlement of the loan and security agreement. Beginning in March of 2025, AviaGames is required to pay Skillz an additional $7.5 million annually over a four-year period as royalty payments for AviaGames’ license of the ‘564 patent and its patent family; no portion of these payments are due to Big Run.

During the three months ended March 31, 2026 and 2025, the Company recorded a gain from the Litigation Settlement of $7.5 million when payment was received. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the Company is scheduled to receive annual payments of $7.5 million each year through March 2028. Since gain contingencies are not recognized until realized, the Company recognizes amounts under the settlement as a gain when payment is received. The remaining scheduled payments of $15.0 million, consisting of $7.5 million payable in each of March 2027 and March 2028, have not been recognized in the accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements.

On August 29, 2025, the Company received a notice (“Notice”) from Tether Studios, LLC (“Tether”) indicating that Tether is terminating all of its agreements with the Company (“Tether Agreements”), including the Company’s Developer Terms and Conditions of Service, as amended, effective as of September 1, 2025. The Company believes the termination notice for cause is invalid and that Tether breached its obligations under the Tether Agreements. Certain of the Tether Agreements restrict the removal of two games covered thereby, Solitaire Cube and 21 Blitz, from the Company’s platform for at least 18 months following termination.

Following receipt of the Notice, on September 1, 2025, the Company filed suit in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, seeking injunctive and declaratory relief in relation to Tether’s breach of the Tether Agreements. On October 3, 2025, the Company filed a first amended complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware alleging additional breaches of contract and damages. On October 10, 2025, Tether filed its answer to Skillz’s first amended complaint and also asserted counterclaims against Skillz for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith trademark infringement, and under Delaware’s deceptive trade practices act. On March 3, 2026, Skillz filed a second amended complaint, adding Aim Games, LLC (“Aim Games”) to the complaint, which Skillz alleges is an alter ego or controlled affiliate of Tether. Skillz alleges that Aim Games impermissibly hosted monetization services for Tether’s games in violation of the Tether Agreements. Skillz asserted breach of contract claims against both Tether and Aim Games, and tortious interference claims against Aim Games. Skillz seeks equitable relief and damages arising out of its claims. The deadline to serve written discovery requests was June 17, 2026, with document production due July 30, 2026. Fact discovery is scheduled to conclude on

In March 2024, an alleged stockholder filed a putative derivative complaint, Hanna v. Paradise, et al., No. 2024-0228-KSJM, in the Delaware Court of Chancery, purportedly on behalf of Skillz against certain of Skillz’s current and former officers, directors, and certain stockholders. The complaint alleges breaches of fiduciary duties, aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duties, and unjust enrichment arising out of Skillz’s March 2021 underwritten secondary public offering. The complaint asserts that certain of the director and officer defendants breached fiduciary duties to Skillz by allegedly inappropriately selling stock as part of the public offering while in possession of material, non-public information, that the stockholder defendants aided and abetted these alleged breaches of fiduciary duties, and that all defendants were unjustly enriched by their sales in the public offering. The complaint seeks unspecified damages and restitution for Skillz from the defendants and the payment of costs and attorneys’ fees. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on June 6, 2024. Plaintiffs responded by voluntarily dismissing 55 of the stockholder defendants but opposing the motion as to all remaining defendants. Briefing on the motion to dismiss was completed at the end of August 2024. The court heard oral arguments on the motion to dismiss on January 7, 2025. On July 3, 2025, the court issued a ruling converting defendants’ motion to dismiss on demand futility grounds to a motion for summary judgment and ordered limited discovery on the independence of a former Skillz director. The court stayed consideration of defendants’ other dismissal arguments given its ultimate ruling on the demand futility issue could moot these other dismissal arguments. On June 24, 2026, the plaintiff filed a Stipulation and Order of Voluntary Dismissal, with prejudice, dismissing the lawsuit in its entirety.

On July 1, 2024, Skillz filed suit against Voodoo SAS and two affiliate entities, Esport Newco SAS and Esport Newco US Corp. (collectively, "Voodoo") in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. In its complaint, Skillz asserts violations of the Lanham Act's prohibition of false advertising and New York's General Business Law § 349 based on, inter alia, Skillz’s allegations that Voodoo advertises its mobile games offered through the “Blitz Win Cash” application as “fair,” “skill-based,” and for “real players only” when in reality Voodoo is fixing the outcome of its tournaments through the use of computer algorithms or “bots.” On August 22, 2024, Skillz brought a motion for a preliminary injunction, and on September 18, 2024, Voodoo moved to dismiss the complaint or, in the alternative, to strike certain allegations. Skillz’s and Voodoo’s motions were both mooted when Skillz amended its complaint on October 2, 2024. On October 8, 2024, Skillz renewed its motion for a preliminary injunction and expedited discovery based on the amended complaint, and Voodoo moved to dismiss the amended complaint on October 16, 2024. Voodoo’s motion to dismiss is fully briefed and awaiting a decision by the court. The court denied Skillz’s motion for preliminary injunction. On July 23, 2025, the court denied Voodoo’s motion to stay discovery pending a decision on the motion to dismiss and to bifurcate proceedings to focus on damages only. The court entered an order on April 9, 2026 extending fact discovery to close on August 14, 2026 and depositions to be completed by November 20, 2026. Both parties have served written discovery requests and are proceeding with fact discovery.

In March 2024, Skillz sued Papaya Gaming, Ltd. and Papaya Gaming, Inc. (collectively, “Papaya”) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging false advertising under the Lanham Act and unfair business practices in connection with Papaya’s marketing of its mobile games as “fair” and “skill-based” despite Papaya’s deployment of algorithmic competitors (“bots”) in its games that win cash prizes for Papaya’s benefit. In June 2024, the court denied Papaya’s motion to dismiss Skillz’s complaint in its entirety.

In September 2024, Papaya filed amended counterclaims against Skillz alleging that Skillz also engaged in false advertising and unfair business practices for purportedly allowing bots in games on Skillz’s platform, defamation for Skillz’s alleged involvement in a non-profit organization that collected and published data related to customer complaints to state attorney generals related to Papaya’s and other companies’ alleged fraudulent bot use, and purported trademark and copyright infringement of design elements of certain games, among other things.

In March 2025, the court dismissed Papaya’s defamation counterclaims and severed Papaya’s intellectual property claims. Following the court’s rulings, Papaya voluntarily dismissed its intellectual property claims against Skillz. On October 27, 2025, the court denied Papaya’s motion for summary judgment on Skillz’s claims. The court also denied Papaya’s motion to exclude Skillz’s damages and survey experts. On November 21, 2025, the court granted Skillz’s motion for summary judgment of all of

On April 23, 2026, a jury in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York found Papaya liable for false advertising and returned awards of $420 million in actual damages, $719 million in advisory profits-based disgorgement, and $652 million in advisory cost-savings disgorgement, with the court to determine which recovery theory will apply. Post-trial motions, oppositions, and replies were filed by the court’s June 19, 2026 deadline. The court issued an opinion and order awarding $719 million in disgorgement of unjust profits, plus approximately $10.1 million in fees and costs to Skillz on July 27, 2026. A final judgment in the matter was entered on July 31, 2026. The Company intends to vigorously pursue full collection of the judgment; however, no assurance can be given as to the timing or amount of any ultimate recovery, including in light of any appeal or further proceedings.

On January 21, 2026, a putative class action was filed in the Northern District of California, Kel Mitchell et al., v. Skillz Platform Inc., Case No. 4:26-cv-00674-AMO. Plaintiffs individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, alleges that Skillz violated California’s Unfair Competition Law, New York law for Deceptive Acts and Practices, Texas’s Deceptive Trade Practices Act, made negligent misrepresentations, and is liable for unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs’ claims arise out of allegations that Skillz purportedly made misrepresentations about not using bots in competitions on Skillz’s platform, misrepresented the evenness of Skillz’s matchmaking, and made misrepresentations about a user’s ability to withdraw cash. Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief that Skillz’s conduct violates applicable state law, compensatory and economic damages, damages for mental anguish, statutory, treble, and punitive damages, restitution of the money lost by the class, interest, costs, and attorneys’ fees, and injunctive relief. Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on March 31, 2026. Skillz filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint on May 12, with the matter to be heard on August 6, 2026. Based on the information known by the Company, any such estimated loss is immaterial.

The Company is subject to indirect taxes, including sales and use tax in the United States and value-added tax in certain foreign jurisdictions. The Company had indirect tax liabilities totaling $8.4 million and $12.6 million as of June 30, 2026 and December 31, 2025, respectively, associated with indirect taxes based on currently available information and assumptions that the Company believes are reasonable based on an evaluation of relevant factors. Indirect tax liabilities are adjusted considering changing facts and circumstances, such as the closing of a tax examination, further interpretation of existing tax law, or new tax law. The Company recognizes changes to estimates if they are estimable and probable that our positions would not be sustainable upon examination by tax authorities. Although management believes our recorded liabilities are reasonable, no assurance can be given that the final tax outcomes of these matters will not be different from those which our liabilities are based on. The Company’s application of the revenue code for indirect taxes in certain jurisdictions, including those within the United States, may be challenged by tax authorities in those jurisdictions. The Company is in the process of filing self-disclosure returns in unregistered jurisdictions. Any associated assessments may result in additional tax liabilities. The Company does not currently anticipate that any such assessments will result in a material increase in the liabilities.