Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Aug. 02, 2026
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Legal Proceedings We are subject to legal proceedings and claims that arise in the ordinary course of business, as well as certain other non-ordinary course proceedings, claims and investigations, as described below. We make a provision for a loss contingency when it is both probable that a material liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. If only a range of estimated losses can be determined, we accrue an amount within the range that, in our judgment, reflects the most likely outcome; if none of the estimates within that range is a better estimate than any other amount, we accrue to the low end of the range. For proceedings in which an unfavorable outcome is reasonably possible but not probable and an estimate of the loss or range of losses arising from the proceeding can be made, we disclose such an estimate, if material. If such a loss or range of losses is not reasonably estimable, we disclose that fact. We review any such loss contingency provisions at least quarterly and adjust them to reflect the impacts of negotiations, settlements, rulings, advice of legal counsel and other information and events pertaining to a particular case. We recognize insurance recoveries, if any, when they are probable of receipt. All associated costs due to third-party service providers and consultants, including legal fees, are expensed as incurred. Legal proceedings are inherently unpredictable. It is possible that our condensed financial position, results of operations or cash flows could be materially negatively affected in any particular period by an unfavorable resolution of one or more of such legal proceedings. On March 21, 2024, a putative class action complaint related to the Company’s pricing was filed against the Company. The lawsuit, captioned Nguyen v. The Lovesac Company, was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento, and was removed to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. The complaint generally alleges that the Company falsely advertised discounts on certain products. The plaintiff seeks, among other things, an unspecified amount of monetary damages, including treble damages, punitive damages, injunctive relief related to the Company’s sales practices, and attorneys’ fees, expert fees, and other expenses. On June 24, 2024, the Company filed a motion to dismiss. On July 15, 2024, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. On August 12, 2024, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s amended complaint. On November 26, 2024, the court entered an order to stay all proceedings in the case in light of a mediation of the dispute scheduled for January 23, 2025. The parties were unable to come to an agreement at the January 23, 2025 mediation. On February 7, 2025, the court unstayed the proceedings in the case for the purpose of ruling on the Company's pending motion to dismiss. On March 28, 2025, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss with leave to amend, but dismissed the plaintiff's request for equitable relief, including injunctive relief, without leave to amend. On April 18, 2025, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. On June 2, 2025, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s second amended complaint. The Company’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s second amended complaint is pending a decision by the Court. At this time, we are unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss from this proceeding. On August 26, 2025, a putative class action complaint related to alleged wage and hour violations was filed against the Company. On October 27, 2025, Plaintiff filed a first amended class action and PAGA complaint. The lawsuit, captioned Guerrero v. The Lovesac Company, was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego. The complaint generally alleges that the Company (1) failed to pay minimum wages, (2) failed to pay overtime, (3) failed to provide meal periods, (4) failed to permit rest breaks, (5) failed to indemnify necessary business expenses, (6) failed to timely pay final wages, (7) failed to provide accurate wage statements, (8) unfair business practices, and (9) civil penalties under PAGA . The plaintiff seeks, among other things, an unspecified amount of monetary damages, such as general unpaid minimum and overtime wages, pre-judgment interest, statutory penalties, civil penalties, attorneys' fees and costs and injunctive relief. On November 24, 2025, the Company filed an answer to the first amended complaint. On July 29, 2026, the parties mediated this matter. The parties were unable to come to an agreement at the July 29 mediation. The litigation is in its early stages and the final determinations of liability arising from this litigation matter will only be made following comprehensive investigations and litigation processes. The Company believes the resolution will not have a material impact to the financial statements. In the opinion of management for the Company, there is no litigation in which the outcome will have a material effect on the financial statements as of August 2, 2026. Tariff Matters On February 20, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that tariffs imposed under the IEEPA were unlawful. On April 20, 2026, U.S. Customs and Border Protection ("CBP") launched the Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries ("CAPE") process to permit importers to seek refunds of previously paid IEEPA tariffs. The Company submitted refund claims under the CAPE process in April 2026. The Company began receiving refunds in the second quarter of fiscal 2027 and recognizes such refunds in accordance with the gain contingency guidance in ASC 450-30, Gain Contingencies. Accordingly, refunds are recognized only when realized or realizable and collection is deemed probable. As of August 2, 2026, the Company had received $21.0 million of IEEPA tariff refunds, including related interest. Of this amount, $20.0 million was recognized as a reduction of cost of merchandise sold, $0.3 million was recorded as a reduction of inventory, and $0.7 million was recognized as interest income within interest and other income, net. The tariff refunds were recorded consistent with the original classification of the underlying tariff costs, while the related interest was recognized separately as compensation for the time value of money rather than as a recovery of product costs.

We are subject to legal proceedings and claims that arise in the ordinary course of business, as well as certain other non-ordinary course proceedings, claims and investigations, as described below. We make a provision for a loss contingency when it is both probable that a material liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. If only a range of estimated losses can be determined, we accrue an amount within the range that, in our judgment, reflects the most likely outcome; if none of the estimates within that range is a better estimate than any other amount, we accrue to the low end of the range. For proceedings in which an unfavorable outcome is reasonably possible but not probable and an estimate of the loss or range of losses arising from the proceeding can be made, we disclose such an estimate, if material. If such a loss or range of losses is not reasonably estimable, we disclose that fact. We review any such loss contingency provisions at least quarterly and adjust them to reflect the impacts of negotiations, settlements, rulings, advice of legal counsel and other information and events pertaining to a particular case. We recognize insurance recoveries, if any, when they are probable of receipt. All associated costs due to third-party service providers and consultants, including legal fees, are expensed as incurred. Legal proceedings are inherently unpredictable. It is possible that our condensed financial position, results of operations or cash flows could be materially negatively affected in any particular period by an unfavorable resolution of one or more of such legal proceedings.

On March 21, 2024, a putative class action complaint related to the Company’s pricing was filed against the Company. The lawsuit, captioned Nguyen v. The Lovesac Company, was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento, and was removed to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. The complaint generally alleges that the Company falsely advertised discounts on certain products. The plaintiff seeks, among other things, an unspecified amount of monetary damages, including treble damages, punitive damages, injunctive relief related to the Company’s sales practices, and attorneys’ fees, expert fees, and other expenses. On June 24, 2024, the Company filed a motion to dismiss. On July 15, 2024, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. On August 12, 2024, the Company filed a motion to dismiss

the plaintiff’s amended complaint. On November 26, 2024, the court entered an order to stay all proceedings in the case in light of a mediation of the dispute scheduled for January 23, 2025. The parties were unable to come to an agreement at the January 23, 2025 mediation. On February 7, 2025, the court unstayed the proceedings in the case for the purpose of ruling on the Company's pending motion to dismiss. On March 28, 2025, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss with leave to amend, but dismissed the plaintiff's request for equitable relief, including injunctive relief, without leave to amend. On April 18, 2025, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. On June 2, 2025, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s second amended complaint. The Company’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s second amended complaint is pending a decision by the Court. At this time, we are unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss from this proceeding.

On August 26, 2025, a putative class action complaint related to alleged wage and hour violations was filed against the Company. On October 27, 2025, Plaintiff filed a first amended class action and PAGA complaint. The lawsuit, captioned Guerrero v. The Lovesac Company, was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego. The complaint generally alleges that the Company (1) failed to pay minimum wages, (2) failed to pay overtime, (3) failed to provide meal periods, (4) failed to permit rest breaks, (5) failed to indemnify necessary business expenses, (6) failed to timely pay final wages, (7) failed to provide accurate wage statements, (8) unfair business practices, and (9) civil penalties under PAGA . The plaintiff seeks, among other things, an unspecified amount of monetary damages, such as general unpaid minimum and overtime wages, pre-judgment interest, statutory penalties, civil penalties, attorneys' fees and costs and injunctive relief.

On November 24, 2025, the Company filed an answer to the first amended complaint. On July 29, 2026, the parties mediated this matter. The parties were unable to come to an agreement at the July 29 mediation. The litigation is in its early stages and the final determinations of liability arising from this litigation matter will only be made following comprehensive investigations and litigation processes. The Company believes the resolution will not have a material impact to the financial statements.

On February 20, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that tariffs imposed under the IEEPA were unlawful. On April 20, 2026, U.S. Customs and Border Protection ("CBP") launched the Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries ("CAPE") process to permit importers to seek refunds of previously paid IEEPA tariffs. The Company submitted refund claims under the CAPE process in April 2026.