Commitments and contingencies	3 Months Ended
Sep. 25, 2026
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and contingencies	Commitments and contingencies Bank guarantees As of September 25, 2026 and June 26, 2026, there were outstanding bank guarantees on behalf of the Company's subsidiary in Thailand for electricity usage and other normal business expenses of Thai baht 88.6 million and Thai baht 83.3 million, respectively, or approximately $2.6 million and $2.3 million, respectively. As of September 25, 2026, the Company had an outstanding bank guarantee on behalf of its subsidiary in China to support the subsidiary's operations of Chinese Renminbi ("RMB") 4.8 million ($0.7 million) and the bank guarantee was backed by cash collateral of $0.7 million. In addition, there were other immaterial bank guarantees on behalf of the Company's subsidiary in Israel to support the subsidiary's operations. Purchase obligations Purchase obligations represent legally binding commitments to purchase inventory and other commitments made in the normal course of business to meet operational requirements. Although open purchase orders are considered enforceable and legally binding, their terms generally give the Company the option to cancel, reschedule and/or adjust its requirements based on its business needs prior to the delivery of goods or performance of services. Obligations to purchase inventory and other commitments are generally expected to be fulfilled within one year. As of September 25, 2026, the Company had purchase obligations and other commitments to third parties of $3.19 billion. Capital expenditures In February 2025, the Company entered into a construction contract with a local contractor for construction of a new manufacturing building at the Company's Chonburi campus. The contract price is approximately $132.5 million (Thai baht 4.45 billion). As of September 25, 2026, the Company had total capital expenditure commitments to third parties of $164.1 million. Litigation and claim On June 28, 2024, Ngan In Leng and First Laser Limited (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint in the Fuzhou Intermediate People’s Court (the “Court”) in Fuzhou, China against Fujian Enterprises (Holdings) Co., Ltd. (“FEHC”), Jian An Investment Limited (“Jian”), and Casix, Inc. (“Casix”), the Company's wholly-owned subsidiary located in the PRC. The complaint alleged unjust enrichment related to a purported investment in Casix by the Plaintiffs in 1997, which predates the Company's acquisition of Casix from JDS Uniphase Corporation. The Plaintiffs requested that the Court order FEHC to return the unjust enrichment to the Plaintiffs in the amount of RMB 400 million, with interest from March 1, 2000, and order Jian and Casix to bear joint and several liability for all payment obligations of FEHC. In September 2024, the Court dismissed the complaint in its entirety based on jurisdictional grounds. The Plaintiffs subsequently appealed the Court’s ruling to the High People's Court of Fujian Province (the "Appellate Court"). In their appeal, the Plaintiffs claimed that Casix is the primary obligor to return the alleged unjust enrichment to the Plaintiffs. In November 2025, the Appellate Court upheld the Court's ruling and dismissed the lawsuit on jurisdictional grounds. In April 2026, the Plaintiffs appealed the Appellate Court’s ruling to the Supreme People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China (the “PRC Supreme Court”). The PRC Supreme Court held an initial hearing on July 2, 2026 and, on July 30, 2026, rendered a ruling accepting the case for retrial. The acceptance of the case for retrial does not represent a determination on the merits of the Plaintiffs' claims. At this time, the Company is not able to quantify any potential liability in connection with this litigation because of the early stage of this litigation. Other Matters Following the February 2026 ruling by the United States Supreme Court striking down certain tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, U.S. Customs and Border Protection has since announced steps toward an administrative process to address potential tariff refunds. However, the availability, timing, and amount of any potential refunds remain uncertain and are subject to ongoing legal, regulatory, and administrative developments. The Company continues to monitor the situation, including any potential refunds of such tariffs, and evaluate the impact on its results of operations. As of September 25, 2026, the Company evaluated the potential recovery of previously incurred tariffs under a loss‑recovery model and has not recorded a receivable because recovery is not considered probable. Indemnification of directors and officers Cayman Islands law does not limit the extent to which a company’s memorandum and articles of association may provide for indemnification of directors and officers, except to the extent any such provision may be held by the Cayman Islands courts to be contrary to public policy, such as to provide indemnification against civil fraud or the consequences of committing a crime. Fabrinet’s amended and restated memorandum and articles of association provide for indemnification of directors and officers for actions, costs, charges, losses, damages and expenses incurred in their capacities as such, except that such indemnification does not extend to any matter in respect of any fraud or dishonesty that may attach to any of them. In accordance with Fabrinet’s form of indemnification agreement for its directors and officers, Fabrinet has agreed to indemnify its directors and officers against certain liabilities and expenses incurred by such persons in connection with claims by reason of their being such a director or officer. Fabrinet maintains a director and officer liability insurance policy that may enable it to recover a portion of any future amounts paid under the indemnification agreements.

As of September 25, 2026 and June 26, 2026, there were outstanding bank guarantees on behalf of the Company's subsidiary in Thailand for electricity usage and other normal business expenses of Thai baht 88.6 million and Thai baht 83.3 million, respectively, or approximately $2.6 million and $2.3 million, respectively. As of September 25, 2026, the Company had an outstanding bank guarantee on behalf of its subsidiary in China to support the subsidiary's operations of Chinese Renminbi ("RMB") 4.8 million ($0.7 million) and the bank guarantee was backed by cash collateral of $0.7 million. In addition, there were other immaterial bank guarantees on behalf of the Company's subsidiary in Israel to support the subsidiary's operations.

Purchase obligations represent legally binding commitments to purchase inventory and other commitments made in the normal course of business to meet operational requirements. Although open purchase orders are considered enforceable and legally binding, their terms generally give the Company the option to cancel, reschedule and/or adjust its requirements based on its business needs prior to the delivery of goods or performance of services. Obligations to purchase inventory and other commitments are generally expected to be fulfilled within one year.

In February 2025, the Company entered into a construction contract with a local contractor for construction of a new manufacturing building at the Company's Chonburi campus. The contract price is approximately $132.5 million (Thai baht 4.45 billion).

On June 28, 2024, Ngan In Leng and First Laser Limited (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint in the Fuzhou Intermediate People’s Court (the “Court”) in Fuzhou, China against Fujian Enterprises (Holdings) Co., Ltd. (“FEHC”), Jian An Investment Limited (“Jian”), and Casix, Inc. (“Casix”), the Company's wholly-owned subsidiary located in the PRC. The complaint alleged unjust enrichment related to a purported investment in Casix by the Plaintiffs in 1997, which predates the Company's acquisition of Casix from JDS Uniphase Corporation. The Plaintiffs requested that the Court order FEHC to return the unjust enrichment to the Plaintiffs in the amount of RMB 400 million, with interest from March 1, 2000, and order Jian and Casix to bear joint and several liability for all payment obligations of FEHC.

In September 2024, the Court dismissed the complaint in its entirety based on jurisdictional grounds. The Plaintiffs subsequently appealed the Court’s ruling to the High People's Court of Fujian Province (the "Appellate Court"). In their appeal, the Plaintiffs claimed that Casix is the primary obligor to return the alleged unjust enrichment to the Plaintiffs. In November 2025, the Appellate Court upheld the Court's ruling and dismissed the lawsuit on jurisdictional grounds.

In April 2026, the Plaintiffs appealed the Appellate Court’s ruling to the Supreme People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China (the “PRC Supreme Court”). The PRC Supreme Court held an initial hearing on July 2, 2026 and, on July 30, 2026, rendered a ruling accepting the case for retrial. The acceptance of the case for retrial does not represent a determination on the merits of the Plaintiffs' claims. At this time, the Company is not able to quantify any potential liability in connection with this litigation because of the early stage of this litigation.

Following the February 2026 ruling by the United States Supreme Court striking down certain tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, U.S. Customs and Border Protection has since announced steps toward an administrative process to address potential tariff refunds. However, the availability, timing, and amount of any potential refunds remain uncertain and are subject to ongoing legal, regulatory, and administrative developments. The Company continues to monitor the situation, including any potential refunds of such tariffs, and evaluate the impact on its results of operations. As of September 25, 2026, the Company evaluated the potential recovery of previously incurred tariffs under a loss‑recovery model and has not recorded a receivable because recovery is not considered probable.

Cayman Islands law does not limit the extent to which a company’s memorandum and articles of association may provide for indemnification of directors and officers, except to the extent any such provision may be held by the Cayman Islands courts to be contrary to public policy, such as to provide indemnification against civil fraud or the consequences of committing a crime. Fabrinet’s amended and restated memorandum and articles of association provide for indemnification of directors and officers for actions, costs, charges, losses, damages and expenses incurred in their capacities as such, except that such indemnification does not extend to any matter in respect of any fraud or dishonesty that may attach to any of them.

In accordance with Fabrinet’s form of indemnification agreement for its directors and officers, Fabrinet has agreed to indemnify its directors and officers against certain liabilities and expenses incurred by such persons in connection with claims by reason of their being such a director or officer. Fabrinet maintains a director and officer liability insurance policy that may enable it to recover a portion of any future amounts paid under the indemnification agreements.