XML 30 R18.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.25.3

Commitments and Contingencies | 9 Months Ended
--- | ---
Oct. 26, 2025
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies Commitments Manufacturing production, long-term supply and capacity, and other related commitments reflect long lead and cycle times for our current and future product architectures. We enter into agreements with contract manufacturers that allow them to procure inventory based upon our defined criteria, and in certain instances, these agreements are cancellable, able to be rescheduled, or adjustable for our business needs prior to placing firm orders. Though, changes to these agreements may result in additional costs. As of October 26, 2025, these commitments were $50.3 billion, of which substantially all will be paid through fiscal year 2027. Multi-year cloud service agreement commitments as of October 26, 2025, were $26 billion for which $1 billion, $6 billion, $6 billion, $5 billion, $4 billion, and $4 billion will be paid in fiscal years 2026 (fourth quarter), 2027, 2028, 2029, 2030, and 2031 & thereafter, respectively. Some cloud service capacity may be reduced, terminated or sold to others by the CSPs, in which case our commitments will be reduced. We expect cloud service agreements to be used to support our research and development efforts and DGX Cloud offerings. nvestment commitments are $6.5 billion as of October 26, 2025, including $5 billion in Intel Corporation which is subject to regulatory approval. In the third quarter of fiscal year 2026, we entered into a letter of intent with an opportunity to invest in OpenAI. In November 2025, we entered into an agreement, subject to certain closing conditions, to invest up to $10 billion in Anthropic. Other commitments were $2.1 billion as of October 26, 2025, of which the majority will be paid through fiscal year 2027. Accrual for Product Warranty Liabilities The estimated product warranty activity consisted of the following:
| Three Months Ended |  | Nine Months Ended
| Oct 26, 2025 |  | Oct 27, 2024 |  | Oct 26, 2025 |  | Oct 27, 2024
| (In millions)
Balance at beginning of period | $ | 2,144 |  |  | $ | 741 |  |  | $ | 1,290 |  |  | $ | 306 |
Additions | 1,074 |  |  | 304 |  |  | 2,164 |  |  | 775 |
Utilization | (511) |  |  | (36) |  |  | (747) |  |  | (72) |
Balance at end of period | $ | 2,707 |  |  | $ | 1,009 |  |  | $ | 2,707 |  |  | $ | 1,009 |
We have provided indemnities for matters such as tax, product, and employee liabilities. We have included intellectual property indemnification provisions in our technology-related agreements with third parties. Maximum potential future payments cannot be estimated because many of these agreements do not have a maximum stated liability. We have not recorded any liability in our Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements for such indemnifications. Litigation Securities Class Action and Derivative Lawsuits The plaintiffs in the putative securities class action lawsuit, captioned 4:18-cv-07669-HSG, initially filed on December 21, 2018 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and titled In Re NVIDIA Corporation Securities Litigation, filed an amended complaint on May 13, 2020. The amended complaint asserted that NVIDIA and certain NVIDIA executives violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, and SEC Rule 10b-5, by making materially false or misleading statements related to channel inventory and the impact of cryptocurrency mining on GPU demand between May 10, 2017 and November 14, 2018. Plaintiffs also alleged that the NVIDIA executives who they named as defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Plaintiffs sought class certification, an award of unspecified compensatory damages, an award of reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees and expert fees, and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. On March 2, 2021, the district court granted NVIDIA’s motion to dismiss the complaint without leave to amend, entered judgment in favor of NVIDIA and closed the case. On March 30, 2021, plaintiffs filed an appeal from judgment in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, case number 21-15604. On August 25, 2023, a majority of a three-judge Ninth Circuit panel affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s dismissal of the case, with a third judge dissenting on the basis that the district court did not err in dismissing the case. On November 15, 2023, the Ninth Circuit denied NVIDIA’s petition for rehearing en banc of the Ninth Circuit panel’s majority decision to reverse in part the dismissal of the case, which NVIDIA had filed on October 10, 2023. On December 5, 2023, the Ninth Circuit granted NVIDIA’s motion to stay the mandate pending NVIDIA’s petition for a writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court of the United States and the Supreme Court’s final disposition of the matter. NVIDIA filed a petition for a writ of certiorari on March 4, 2024. On June 17, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States granted NVIDIA’s petition for a writ of certiorari. After briefing and argument, the Supreme Court dismissed NVIDIA’s writ of certiorari as improvidently granted on December 11, 2024, and issued judgment on January 13, 2025. On February 20, 2025, the Ninth Circuit’s judgment, entered August 25, 2023 and corrected August 28, 2023, took effect, and the case was remanded to the district court for further proceedings. The putative derivative lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned 4:19-cv-00341-HSG, initially filed January 18, 2019 and titled In re NVIDIA Corporation Consolidated Derivative Litigation, was stayed pending resolution of the plaintiffs’ appeal in the In Re NVIDIA Corporation Securities Litigation action. On February 22, 2022, the court administratively closed the case, but stated that it would reopen the case once the appeal in the In Re NVIDIA Corporation Securities Litigation action is resolved. The case has not yet been reopened by the court. The lawsuit asserts claims, purportedly on behalf of us, against certain officers and directors of the Company for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, waste of corporate assets, and violations of Sections 14(a), 10(b), and 20(a) of the Exchange Act based on the dissemination of allegedly false and misleading statements related to channel inventory and the impact of cryptocurrency mining on GPU demand. The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified damages and other relief, including reforms and improvements to NVIDIA’s corporate governance and internal procedures. The putative derivative actions initially filed September 24, 2019 and pending in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, Lipchitz v. Huang, et al. (Case No. 1:19-cv-01795-MN) and Nelson v. Huang, et. al. (Case No. 1:19-cv-01798-MN), were stayed pending resolution of the plaintiffs’ appeal in the In Re NVIDIA Corporation Securities Litigation action. On March 7, 2025, after the Supreme Court issued its judgment dismissing the Company’s petition for writ of certiorari as improvidently granted in the In Re NVIDIA Securities Litigation action, the district court adopted the parties' stipulation to extend the stay until the final and complete resolution of the In Re NVIDIA Corporation Securities Litigation action. The lawsuits assert claims, purportedly on behalf of us, against certain officers and directors of the Company for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, insider trading, misappropriation of information, corporate waste and violations of Sections 14(a), 10(b), and 20(a) of the Exchange Act based on the dissemination of allegedly false, and misleading statements related to channel inventory and the impact of cryptocurrency mining on GPU demand. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and other relief, including disgorgement of profits from the sale of NVIDIA stock and unspecified corporate governance measures. Another putative derivative action was filed on October 30, 2023 in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Horanic v. Huang, et al. (Case No. 2023-1096-KSJM). This lawsuit asserts claims, purportedly on behalf of us, against certain officers and directors of the Company for breach of fiduciary duty and insider trading based on the dissemination of allegedly false and misleading statements related to channel inventory and the impact of cryptocurrency mining on GPU demand. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and other relief, including disgorgement of profits from the sale of NVIDIA stock and reform of unspecified corporate governance measures. On August 11, 2025, the court granted the parties’ stipulation to voluntarily dismiss with prejudice plaintiff City of Westland Police and Fire Retirement System. This derivative matter is stayed pending the final resolution of In Re NVIDIA Corporation Securities Litigation action. Accounting for Loss Contingencies As of October 26, 2025, there are no accrued contingent liabilities associated with the legal proceedings described above based on our belief that liabilities, while reasonably possible, are not probable. Further, any possible loss or range of loss in these matters cannot be reasonably estimated at this time. We are engaged in legal actions not described above arising in the ordinary course of business, as well as regulatory and government inquiries and investigations, and, while there can be no assurance of favorable outcomes, we believe that the ultimate outcome of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on our operating results, liquidity or financial position. These matters are subject to inherent uncertainties and if the ultimate outcome is unfavorable, there exists the possibility of a material adverse impact on our operating results, liquidity or financial position in the period the outcome becomes estimable and probable.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Topic 405 -SubTopic 30 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/405-30/tableOfContent Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/1943274/2147482648/440-10-50-4 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Topic 450 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/450/tableOfContent Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 954 -SubTopic 440 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (a) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/1943274/2147478522/954-440-50-1 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (c) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/1943274/2147482648/440-10-50-4 Reference 6: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Topic 440 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/440/tableOfContent + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration