XML 39 R27.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.25.2

Commitments and Contingencies | 3 Months Ended
--- | ---
Jul. 04, 2025
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies Indemnifications In the ordinary course of business, we may provide indemnifications of varying scope and terms to customers, vendors, lessors, business partners, subsidiaries and other parties with respect to certain matters, including, but not limited to, product warranties and losses arising out of our breach of agreements or representations and warranties made by us, including claims alleging that our software infringes on the intellectual property rights of a third party. In addition, our bylaws contain indemnification obligations to our directors, officers, employees, and agents, and we have entered into indemnification agreements with our directors and certain of our officers to give such directors and officers additional contractual assurances regarding the scope of the indemnification set forth in our bylaws and to provide additional procedural protections. We maintain director and officer insurance, which may cover certain liabilities arising from our obligation to indemnify our directors and officers. It is not possible to determine the aggregate maximum potential loss under these indemnification agreements due to the limited history of prior indemnification claims and the unique facts and circumstances involved in each particular agreement. Such indemnification agreements might not be subject to maximum loss clauses. We monitor the conditions that are subject to indemnification to identify if a loss has occurred. Historically, we have not incurred material costs as a result of obligations under these agreements, and we have not accrued any material liabilities related to such indemnification obligations in our Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements. Litigation contingencies From time to time, we are involved in legal proceedings, including, but not limited to, regulatory proceedings, claims, mediations, arbitrations and litigation, arising out of the ordinary court of business. We evaluate contingent liabilities including threatened or pending litigation in accordance with the authoritative guidance on contingencies. We assess the likelihood of any adverse judgements or outcomes from potential claims or proceedings for accrual or disclosure in our Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements. A determination of the amount of an accrual required, if any, for these contingencies is made after the analysis of each separate matter. Because of uncertainties related to these matters, we base our estimates on the information available at the time of our assessment. As additional information becomes available, we reassess the potential liability related to our pending claims and litigation and may revise our estimates and disclosures. We classify our accruals for litigation contingencies in our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as part of Other current liabilities or Other long-term liabilities based on when we expect to pay the claim, if at all. If the period of expected payment is within one year, we classify the amount as short-term; otherwise, it is classified as long-term. The exact timing of payment is subject to uncertainty and could change significantly from our estimated payment period. Trustees of the University of Columbia in the City of New York v. NortonLifeLock As previously disclosed, on May 2, 2022, a jury returned its verdict in a patent infringement case filed in 2013 by the Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York (Columbia) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Columbia originally brought suit alleging infringement of six patents owned by the university. We won a favorable claim construction order on all six patents, and the claim construction was upheld by the Federal Circuit in 2016 on all but U.S. Patent Nos. 8,601,322 and 8,074,115. We also sought inter partes review by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the claims of the ‘322 and ‘115 Patents and all but two claims of the ‘322 Patent and three claims of the ‘115 Patent were invalidated. The remaining claims of the ‘322 and ‘115 Patents were the only claims that remained in suit at trial. The jury found that our Norton Security products and Symantec Endpoint Protection products (the latter of which were sold by us to Broadcom as part of an Asset Purchase Agreement dated November 4, 2019) willfully infringe the ‘322 and ‘115 Patents through the use of SONAR/BASH behavioral protection technology. The jury awarded damages in the amount of $185 million. Columbia did not seek injunctive relief against us. We believe that we have ceased the use of the technology found by the jury to infringe. The jury also found that we did not fraudulently conceal its prosecution of U.S. Patent No. 8,549,643 but did find that two Columbia professors were coinventors of this patent. No damages were awarded related to this patent. On September 30, 2023, the court entered its judgment, which awarded Columbia (i) enhanced damages of 2.6 times the jury award; (ii) prejudgment interest, post-judgment interest, and supplemental damages to be calculated in accordance with the parties’ previous agreement; and (iii) attorneys’ fees subject to the parties meeting and conferring as to amount. We have complied with the court’s order and submitted a stipulation regarding the final calculations of all outstanding interest, royalties and attorneys’ fees. We have posted the required surety bond and have appealed the judgement to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, which remains pending. At this time, our current estimate of probable losses from this matter is approximately $601 million, which we have accrued and recorded as part of Other long-term liabilities in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. There is a reasonable possibility that a loss may be incurred in excess of our accrual for this matter; however, such incremental loss cannot be reasonably estimated. Jumpshot Matters At the end of 2019, Avast came under media scrutiny for provision of Avast customer data to its data analytics subsidiary Jumpshot Inc. Jumpshot was a subsidiary of Avast with its own management team and technical experts. Avast announced the decision to terminate its provision of data to, and wind down, Jumpshot on January 30, 2020. As Avast has previously disclosed, it has been in communication with certain regulators and authorities prior to completion of the acquisition of Avast, and we will continue cooperating fully in respect of all regulatory enquiries. On December 23, 2019, the United States Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued a Civil Investigative Demand (CID) to Avast seeking documents and information related to its privacy practices, including Jumpshot's past use of consumer information that was provided to it by Avast. Avast responded cooperatively to the CID and related follow-up requests from the FTC. On October 29, 2021, staff at the FTC sent Avast a draft complaint and proposed settlement order. We engaged in ongoing negotiations with the FTC staff and have reached a negotiated agreement on the terms of a Consent Decree resolving this investigation, the terms of which are now final. This includes a provision for a non-material amount of monetary relief, which has been paid. On February 27, 2020, the Czech Office for Personal Data Protection (the Czech DPA) initiated offense proceedings concerning Avast`s practices with respect to Jumpshot, the Czech DPA issued a decision in March 2022 finding that Avast had violated the GDPR and issued a fine of CZK 351 million, which is approximately $15 million. Avast appealed the decision, which was affirmed by the Czech DPA on April 10, 2024. Avast has now paid the fine levied by the DPA. On June 15, 2024, Avast brought a judicial action in the administrative law court challenging the decision of the Czech DPA. At this stage, the matter remains pending, and we are unable to assess whether any material loss or adverse effect is probable or estimate the range of any potential loss. On March 27, 2024, Stichting CUIC – Privacy Foundation for Collective Redress, a Dutch foundation (the Foundation), filed its writ of summons to initiate a collective action. The Foundation has asserted it represents the interests of Avast customers in the Netherlands whose data was provided to Jumpshot and that by doing so Avast violated the requirements of the GDPR and other provisions in Dutch and European Union privacy and consumer law entitling those customers to damages and other compensation, all of which we dispute. No specific amount of damages has been alleged to date. At this stage, the matter remains pending, and we are unable to assess whether any material loss or adverse effect is probable or estimate the range of any potential loss. On April 18, 2024, we received a letter before action from counsel in the United Kingdom asserting it may bring a representative action on behalf of a class of Avast users in the United Kingdom and Wales for breach of contract and misuse of private information and seeking unspecified damages and a permanent injunction. No lawsuit has commenced. At this stage, we are unable to assess whether any material loss or adverse effect is probable or estimate the range of any potential loss. On December 12, 2022, a putative class action, Lau v. Gen Digital Inc. and Jumpshot Inc. (later restyled as Karwowski v. Gen Digital Inc. et al.), was filed in the Northern District of California alleging violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, California Invasion of Privacy Act, statutory larceny, unfair competition and various common law claims related to the provision of customer data to Jumpshot. The claims related to Jumpshot, and Jumpshot, Inc. as a defendant, were dismissed on July 9, 2024, as a result of a Motion to Dismiss brought by the Company. The remaining claims were then voluntarily dismissed, with prejudice, by the Plaintiffs. Judgment was entered by the Court on October 23, 2024, as to those claims and on November 22, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal regarding the earlier dismissed Jumpshot-related claims and the appeal remains pending. At this stage, we are unable to assess whether any material loss or adverse effect is probable as a result of this action or estimate the range of any potential loss. We dispute these claims and intend to defend ourselves against them vigorously. The outcome of the regulatory proceedings, government enforcement actions and litigation is difficult to predict, and the cost to defend, settle or otherwise resolve these matters may be significant. Plaintiffs or regulatory agencies or authorities in these matters may seek recovery of large or indeterminate amounts or seek to impose sanctions, including significant monetary penalties, as well as equitable relief. The monetary and other impact of these litigations, proceedings or actions may remain unknown for substantial periods of time. Further, an unfavorable resolution of litigations, proceedings or actions could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations and cash flows. The amount of time that will be required to resolve these matters is unpredictable, and these matters may divert management’s attention from the day-to-day operations of our business. Any future investigations or additional lawsuits may also adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. MALKA Seller Members Litigation On July 21, 2023, Jeffrey Frommer, Lyusen Krubich, Daniel Fried and Pat Capra, the former equity owners of MALKA (collectively, the “Seller Members”), brought a civil action in the SDNY against MoneyLion Technologies Inc. alleging, among other things, breaches of the Membership Interest Purchase Agreement (the “MIPA”) governing the acquisition of MALKA. Among other claims, the Seller Members allege that they are entitled to payment of $25 million of Class A common stock of MoneyLion pursuant to the earnout provisions set forth in the MIPA, based on the Seller Members’ assertion that MALKA achieved certain financial targets for the year ended December 31, 2022 (such payment, the “2022 Earnout Payment”). The Company believes that the Seller Members are not entitled to any portion of the 2022 Earnout Payment under the terms of the MIPA and filed counterclaims against the Seller Members, alleging, among other things, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, conversion, breach of fiduciary duties and breach of contract and seeking compensatory damages and other remedies as a result of wrongdoing by the Seller Members. We continue to vigorously pursue our remaining counterclaims and defend against the Seller Members’ claims. The bench trial of all remaining claims concluded on May 5, 2025, and a decision is currently pending. As part of our preliminary allocation of the purchase price to the underlying assets acquired and liabilities assumed in the MoneyLion acquisition, we estimated the contingency at $22 million as of the acquisition date and it is included in Other long-term obligations. If there is any change in our estimate, we will adjust the acquisition accounting for MoneyLion if it occurs within the measurement period. See Note 4 for details regarding our purchase price allocation for our acquisition of MoneyLion. CFPB Litigation On September 29, 2022, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (the “CFPB”) initiated a civil action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (“SDNY”) against MoneyLion Technologies Inc., ML Plus LLC and the Company's 38 state lending subsidiaries, alleging violations of the Military Lending Act and the Consumer Financial Protection Act. The CFPB is seeking injunctive relief, redress for allegedly affected consumers and civil monetary penalties. On January 10, 2023, the Company moved to dismiss the lawsuit, asserting various constitutional and merits-based arguments. On March 24, 2025, the Court granted in part and denied in part the Company's motion to dismiss, substantially narrowing the case. On April 22, 2025, the CFPB filed a second amended complaint. We continue to maintain that the CFPB’s claims are meritless and we are vigorously defending against the lawsuit. However, if a loss is incurred, we will adjust the acquisition accounting for MoneyLion if it occurs within the measurement period. NYAG Litigation On April 14, 2025, the Office of the Attorney General of the State of New York filed a civil action in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, against MoneyLion Inc. The complaint alleges, among other things, that MoneyLion’s earned wage access product violates New York’s civil and criminal usury laws and asserts claims of fraud, deceptive, and false advertising practices under state law, as well as abusive and deceptive practices under the federal Consumer Financial Protection Act. On April 28, 2025, the Attorney General filed an amended complaint, adding MoneyLion Technologies Inc. and ML Plus LLC as defendants. We removed the action to the District Court of the SDNY and the State of New York is seeking to remand the case. That motion remains pending. We believe the Attorney General’s claims are without merit and intend to vigorously defend against the lawsuit. However, if a loss is incurred, we will adjust the acquisition accounting for MoneyLion if it occurs within the measurement period. Other We are involved in a number of other judicial, arbitrable and administrative proceedings that are incidental to our business. Although adverse decisions (or settlements) may occur in one or more of the cases, it is not possible to estimate the possible loss or losses from each of these cases. The final resolution of these lawsuits, individually or in the aggregate, is not expected to have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. During the three months ended July 4, 2025 and June 28, 2024, we incurred $5 million and $15 million, respectively, related to the estimated accrual and final resolutions of our litigation contingencies in our Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations.

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