Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2026
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 12: Commitments and Contingencies *Commitments* The Company enters into various agreements with suppliers for the products it distributes. The Company had no long-term purchase commitments or arrangements with its suppliers as of June 30, 2026, and June 30, 2025. *Litigation, Claims and Assessments* We are exposed to claims and litigations of varying degrees arising in the ordinary course of business and use various methods to resolve these matters. When a loss is probable, we record an accrual based on the reasonably estimable loss or range of loss. When no point of loss is more likely than another, we record the lowest amount in the estimated range of loss and, if material, disclose the estimated range of loss. We do not record liabilities for reasonably possible loss contingencies but do disclose a range of reasonably possible losses if they are material and we are able to estimate such a range. If we cannot provide a range of reasonably possible losses, we explain the factors that prevent us from determining such a range. Historically, adjustments to our estimates have not been material. We believe the recorded reserves in our consolidated financial statements are adequate in light of the probable and estimable liabilities. We do not believe that any of these identified claims or litigation will be material to our results of operations, cash flows, or financial condition. On June 6, 2024, Office Create Corporation (“Office Create”) filed a complaint against COKeM International Ltd. (“COKeM”) in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota alleging contributory trademark infringement, contributory false designation of origin and unjust enrichment relating to COKeM’s alleged distribution of the video game Cooking Mama: Cookstar. Office Create originally sought damages of no less than $20,913,200, plus interest of 9% accruing from October 3, 2022. On August 29, 2024, COKeM filed a response denying all allegations, and on September 12, 2024 filed a third-party complaint against Planet Entertainment LLC and Steven Grossman asserting claims for indemnification and contribution. Office Create later filed an amended complaint impleading the former owner, chairman, chief financial officer and senior vice president of sales of COKeM and asserting claims for willful trademark infringement and civil conspiracy, increasing the damages sought to an amount in excess of $35 million. COKeM filed an amended answer as to the new claims pertaining to it directly on March 12, 2025, denies the allegations, and intends to continue to defend the lawsuit vigorously. The parties then completed fact discovery, including depositions of a co-defendant corporate designee and of current and former COKeM personnel taken between September 2025 and February 2026, and each party designated a damages expert. On January 6, 2026, Office Create stipulated to the dismissal of its claims against the Plaion defendants pursuant to a confidential settlement, and the court dismissed those defendants from the litigation the same day. Fact discovery has concluded. The parties have engaged in settlement discussions that have not resulted in an agreement, and their respective positions as to value remain materially divergent. During the period from April 17, 2026 through June 30, 2026 the matter remained in the expert-motion phase: COKeM denies liability and continues to defend the matter. The Company maintains liability insurance applicable to this claim. Because the proceedings remain at an expert and pre-trial stage and the parties’ valuations of the claim differ materially, the Company is unable to estimate the amount or range of reasonably possible loss, and no liability has been recorded for this matter as of June 30, 2026. An unfavorable outcome could exceed available insurance and could be material to the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows. Jonathan Hoang To v. DirectToU, LLC, United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No. 3:24-cv-06447; Douglas Feller, Jeffry Haise, and Joseph Mull v. Alliance Entertainment, LLC and DirectToU, LLC, United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Case No. 0:24-cv-61444; and Vivek Shah v. DirectToU, LLC, JAMS Arbitration, No. 5220006749. — On or about September 12, 2024, these actions were brought against DirectToU, LLC (“DirectToU”) and/or Alliance Entertainment, LLC (“Alliance”) alleging violations of the Video Privacy Protection Act (“VPPA”) related to the alleged collection of, and alleged disclosure to Meta and other third parties including data brokers of, private information and user data regarding a user’s account information and video viewing and purchasing history from websites operated by the Company. DirectToU and Alliance disputed the allegations. The Feller action was dismissed and those plaintiffs were added to the Hoang To matter. The parties agreed to resolve the claims on a class-wide basis for $1.58 million. The court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on September 22, 2025 and entered final approval on May 5, 2026. The settlement was funded during the fiscal year ended June 30, 2026, and the matter was fully resolved as of that date. No further obligation or contingency exists in respect of these claims. The Company recorded a contingent liability of $1.58 million for the settlement and a related insurance recovery receivable from CNA of $1.38 million as of June 30, 2025. Both amounts were settled during the fiscal year ended June 30, 2026, and no balances relating to this matter remain recorded on the consolidated balance sheet as of June 30, 2026. Sparkle Pop, LLC v. Alliance Entertainment Holding Corporation and Alliance Entertainment. LLC (U.S. Bankruptcy Court for MD-In Re Diamond Comic Distributors): On June 9, 2025, Sparkle Pop sued the Alliance entities in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maryland (In re Diamond Comic Distributors) alleging theft of trade secrets and tortious interference with contracts arising out of Alliance’s successful bid for, and subsequent termination of, the asset purchase agreement in the Diamond Comic Distributors bankruptcy. Alliance moved to dismiss the original complaint on July 10, 2025. On July 24, 2025, Sparkle Pop filed an amended complaint asserting the same claims plus an additional claim for breach of a non-disclosure agreement, and on August 7, 2025 Alliance moved to dismiss the amended complaint on the grounds that Sparkle Pop lacks standing, having been neither a party to, an intended third-party beneficiary of, nor an assignee of rights under the non-disclosure agreement, and that it failed to state a claim. Briefing was completed on September 17, 2025, and on November 10, 2025 the court heard oral argument and denied Alliance’s motion to dismiss. The adversary proceeding was stayed until February 16, 2026 to permit the appointed Chapter 7 trustee to become familiar with the litigation, after which the parties advance to discovery.

Commitments and Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2026

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Note 12: Commitments and Contingencies

Commitments

The Company enters into various agreements with suppliers for the products it distributes. The Company had no long-term purchase commitments or arrangements with its suppliers as of June 30, 2026, and June 30, 2025.

Litigation, Claims and Assessments

We are exposed to claims and litigations of varying degrees arising in the ordinary course of business and use various methods to resolve these matters. When a loss is probable, we record an accrual based on the reasonably estimable loss or range of loss. When no point of loss is more likely than another, we record the lowest amount in the estimated range of loss and, if material, disclose the estimated range of loss. We do not record liabilities for reasonably possible loss contingencies but do disclose a range of reasonably possible losses if they are material and we are able to estimate such a range. If we cannot provide a range of reasonably possible losses, we explain the factors that prevent us from determining such a range. Historically, adjustments to our estimates have not been material. We believe the recorded reserves in our consolidated financial statements are adequate in light of the probable and estimable liabilities. We do not believe that any of these identified claims or litigation will be material to our results of operations, cash flows, or financial condition.

On June 6, 2024, Office Create Corporation (“Office Create”) filed a complaint against COKeM International Ltd. (“COKeM”) in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota alleging contributory trademark infringement, contributory false designation of origin and unjust enrichment relating to COKeM’s alleged distribution of the video game Cooking Mama: Cookstar. Office Create originally sought damages of no less than $20,913,200, plus interest of 9% accruing from October 3, 2022. On August 29, 2024, COKeM filed a response denying all allegations, and on September 12, 2024 filed a third-party complaint against Planet Entertainment LLC and Steven Grossman asserting claims for indemnification and contribution. Office Create later filed an amended complaint impleading the former owner, chairman, chief financial officer and senior vice president of sales of COKeM and asserting claims for willful trademark infringement and civil conspiracy, increasing the damages sought to an amount in excess of $35 million. COKeM filed an amended answer as to the new claims pertaining to it directly on March 12, 2025, denies the allegations, and intends to continue to defend the lawsuit vigorously.

The parties then completed fact discovery, including depositions of a co-defendant corporate designee and of current and former COKeM personnel taken between September 2025 and February 2026, and each party designated a damages expert. On January 6, 2026, Office Create stipulated to the dismissal of its claims against the Plaion defendants pursuant to a confidential settlement, and the court dismissed those defendants from the litigation the same day. Fact discovery has concluded.

The parties have engaged in settlement discussions that have not resulted in an agreement, and their respective positions as to value remain materially divergent. During the period from April 17, 2026 through June 30, 2026 the matter remained in the expert-motion phase: COKeM denies liability and continues to defend the matter. The Company maintains liability insurance applicable to this claim. Because the proceedings remain at an expert and pre-trial stage and the parties’ valuations of the claim differ materially, the Company is unable to estimate the amount or range of reasonably possible loss, and no liability has been recorded for this matter as of June 30, 2026. An unfavorable outcome could exceed available insurance and could be material to the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows.

Jonathan Hoang To v. DirectToU, LLC, United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No. 3:24-cv-06447; Douglas Feller, Jeffry Haise, and Joseph Mull v. Alliance Entertainment, LLC and DirectToU, LLC, United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Case No. 0:24-cv-61444; and Vivek Shah v. DirectToU, LLC, JAMS Arbitration, No. 5220006749. — On or about September 12, 2024, these actions were brought against DirectToU, LLC (“DirectToU”) and/or Alliance Entertainment, LLC (“Alliance”) alleging violations of the Video Privacy Protection Act (“VPPA”) related to the alleged collection of, and alleged disclosure to Meta and other third parties including data brokers of, private information and user data regarding a user’s account information and video viewing and purchasing history from websites operated by the Company. DirectToU and Alliance disputed the allegations. The Feller action was dismissed and those plaintiffs were added to the Hoang To matter.

The parties agreed to resolve the claims on a class-wide basis for $1.58 million. The court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on September 22, 2025 and entered final approval on May 5, 2026. The settlement was funded during the fiscal year ended June 30, 2026, and the matter was fully resolved as of that date. No further obligation or contingency exists in respect of these claims.

The Company recorded a contingent liability of $1.58 million for the settlement and a related insurance recovery receivable from CNA of $1.38 million as of June 30, 2025. Both amounts were settled during the fiscal year ended June 30, 2026, and no balances relating to this matter remain recorded on the consolidated balance sheet as of June 30, 2026.

Sparkle Pop, LLC v. Alliance Entertainment Holding Corporation and Alliance Entertainment. LLC (U.S. Bankruptcy Court for MD-In Re Diamond Comic Distributors): On June 9, 2025, Sparkle Pop sued the Alliance entities in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maryland (In re Diamond Comic Distributors) alleging theft of trade secrets and tortious interference with contracts arising out of Alliance’s successful bid for, and subsequent termination of, the asset purchase agreement in the Diamond Comic Distributors bankruptcy. Alliance moved to dismiss the original complaint on July 10, 2025. On July 24, 2025, Sparkle Pop filed an amended complaint asserting the same claims plus an additional claim for breach of a non-disclosure agreement, and on August 7, 2025 Alliance moved to dismiss the amended complaint on the grounds that Sparkle Pop lacks standing, having been neither a party to, an intended third-party beneficiary of, nor an assignee of rights under the non-disclosure agreement, and that it failed to state a claim. Briefing was completed on September 17, 2025, and on November 10, 2025 the court heard oral argument and denied Alliance’s motion to dismiss. The adversary proceeding was stayed until February 16, 2026 to permit the appointed Chapter 7 trustee to become familiar with the litigation, after which the parties advance to discovery.