The Company’s contractual obligations for goods or services entered into in the ordinary course of business, including agreements that are enforceable and legally binding and have a remaining term in excess of one year, primarily consist of information technology services and equipment, including investments in our information technology infrastructure and telecommunication services.

In 2021, the Company entered into agreements for potential future customer account purchases from two distinct third parties, assuming certain conditions are met, over the course of those agreements. As of December 31, 2021, remaining commitments for those potential future customer account purchases could total approximately $100 million through January 2023.

The Company and Google entered into a Master Supply, Distribution, and Marketing Agreement (the “Google Commercial Agreement”), pursuant to which Google has agreed to supply the Company with certain Google devices as well as certain Google video and analytics services (“Google Services”), for sale to the Company’s customers. Subject to customary termination rights related to breach and change of control, the Google Commercial Agreement has an initial term of seven years from the date that the Google Services are successfully integrated into the Company’s end-user security and automation platform. If the integrated service is not launched by June 30, 2022, then Google has the contractual right to require the Company to offer Google Services without integration for professional installations except for existing customers who already have ADT Pulse or ADT Control interactive services until such integration has been made. Further, subject to certain carve-outs, the Company has agreed to exclusively sell Google Services and smart-home, security, and safety devices to the Company’s customers. The exclusivity restriction does not apply to, among others, sales of Blue by ADT DIY products and services, providing services to customers on certain of the Company’s legacy platforms, sales to large commercial customers, and sales of certain devices that Google does not supply to the Company.

The Google Commercial Agreement also contains customary termination rights for both parties. In addition, Google has rights to terminate the Google Commercial Agreement if (i) the Company divests any part of its direct to consumer business and the acquiring entity does not agree to assume all obligations under the Google Commercial Agreement, or (ii) the Company

breaches certain provisions of the Google Commercial Agreement and does not cure such breaches. In the event that the Company breaches the Google Commercial Agreement in a manner reasonably likely to result in a material adverse effect on Google’s business or brand, or the Company breaches certain data security and privacy obligations under the Google Commercial Agreement, the Company must suspend the sale of Google Services and certain devices during the applicable cure period. Upon termination of the Google Commercial Agreement, the Company will no longer have rights to sell the Google Services or devices to new customers, subject to an applicable transition period. In addition, the Google Services may not be accessible by the Company’s customers through its integrated end-user application during any cure period for the Company’s breach of certain data security and privacy provisions of the Google Commercial Agreement or upon termination of the agreement for a breach of such provisions.

The Google Commercial Agreement specifies that each party will contribute $150 million towards the joint marketing of devices and services; customer acquisition; training of the Company’s employees for the sales, installation, customer service, and maintenance for the product and service offerings; and technology updates for products included in such offerings. Each party is required to contribute such funds in three equal tranches, subject to the attainment of certain milestones. The Company expects to contribute the majority of these amounts by the end of 2024, however, the timing of these contributions is still uncertain.

The Company is subject to various claims and lawsuits in the ordinary course of business, which include contractual disputes; worker’s compensation; employment matters; product, general, and auto liability claims; claims that the Company has infringed on the intellectual property rights of others; claims related to alleged security system failures; and consumer and employment class actions. The Company is also subject to regulatory and governmental examinations, information requests and subpoenas, inquiries, investigations, and threatened legal actions and proceedings. In connection with such formal and informal inquiries, the Company receives numerous requests, subpoenas, and orders for documents, testimony, and information in connection with various aspects of its activities.

The Company records accruals for losses that are probable and reasonably estimable. These accruals are based on a variety of factors such as judgment, probability of loss, opinions of internal and external legal counsel, and actuarially determined estimates of claims incurred but not yet reported based upon historical claims experience. Legal costs in connection with claims and lawsuits in the ordinary course of business are expensed as incurred. Additionally, the Company records insurance recovery receivables from third-party insurers when recovery has been determined to be probable. The Company has not accrued for any losses for which the likelihood of loss cannot be assessed or the range of possible loss cannot be estimated.

As of December 31, 2021 and 2020, the Company’s accrual related to ongoing claims and lawsuits not within the scope of an insurance program was not material. As of December 31, 2021 and 2020, the Company’s accrual for ongoing claims and lawsuits within the scope of an insurance program totaled $90 million and $89 million, respectively.

In October 2013, the Company was notified by subpoena that the Office of the Attorney General of California, in conjunction with the Alameda County District Attorney, is investigating whether the Company’s electronic waste disposal policies, procedures, and practices are in violation of the California Business and Professions Code and the California Health and Safety Code. During 2016, Protection One, Inc. was also notified by the same parties that it was subject to a similar investigation. The investigations have been inactive since December 2016 other than a status conference conducted in May 2019. The Company is coordinating joint handling of both investigations and continues to fully cooperate with the respective authorities.

Five substantially similar shareholder class action lawsuits related to the IPO in January 2018 were filed in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida in March, April, and May 2018 and were consolidated for discovery and trial and entitled In re ADT Inc. Shareholder Litigation. The consolidated complaint in that action asserts claims on behalf of a putative class of shareholder plaintiffs and sought to represent a class of similarly situated shareholders for alleged violations of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”). The complaint alleges that the Company defendants violated the Securities Act because the registration statement and prospectus used to effectuate the IPO were false and misleading in that they allegedly misled investors with respect to litigation involving the Company, the Company’s efforts to protect its intellectual property, and the competitive pressures faced by the Company. A similar shareholder class action lawsuit entitled Perdomo v ADT Inc., also related to the IPO in January 2018, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida in May 2018. In September 2019, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle both the state court and the federal court actions. In connection with the agreement, the plaintiffs in the Perdomo action voluntarily dismissed the action without prejudice in October 2019. The parties agreed to a Stipulation of Settlement in September 2020. In

In August 2017, Jabra Shuheiber filed civil litigation in Marin County Superior Court on behalf of himself and two other individuals asserting wage and hour violations against the Company. The action is entitled Jabra Shuheiber v. ADT, LLC (Case Number CV 1702912, Superior Court, Marin County). Mr. Shuheiber was the owner/operator of a sub-contractor, Maximum Protection, Inc. (“MPI”), who employed the other two plaintiffs in the litigation. In August 2018, in response to the California Supreme Court’s decision in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, counsel for Mr. Shuheiber provided the Company with a proposed amended complaint that modified the wage and hour claims such that they were brought on a class basis. The proposed class is not clearly defined but appears to be composed of two groups of individuals: 1) individual owners of sub-contractors who performed services for the sub-contractor; and 2) individuals with no ownership interest in a sub-contractor who were employed by the sub-contractor and provided services pursuant to a contract between the sub-contractor and the Company. In October 2018, the Company answered the plaintiffs’ first amended complaint and filed a cross-complaint against the plaintiffs’ sub-contracting company for indemnification pursuant to the term of ADT’s sub-contract. In November 2019, the parties reached a settlement agreement in principle. The settlement was documented and received preliminary approval from the court in July 2020. The court granted final approval of the settlement in January 2021. The settlement has been administered and the matter is now concluded.

In June 2013, the Company was served with a class action complaint in California State Court entitled Villegas v. ADT. In this complaint, the plaintiff asserted that the Company violated certain provisions of the California Alarm Act and the Los Angeles Municipal Alarm Ordinance for its alleged failures to obtain alarm permits for its Los Angeles customers and disclose the alarm permit fee in its customer contracts. The plaintiff seeks to recover damages for putative class members who were required to pay enhanced false alarm fines as a result of the Company not obtaining a valid alarm permit at the time of alarm system installation. The case was initially dismissed by the trial court and judgment was entered in the Company’s favor in October 2014, which the plaintiff appealed. In September 2016, the California Appellate Court reversed and remanded the case back to the trial court. In November 2018, the trial court granted the plaintiff’s motion for class certification and certified four subclasses of customers who received fines from the City of Los Angeles. The case settled in January 2020. The settlement received preliminary approval from the court in February 2021 and final approval in August 2021. The settlement has been administered and the court has set a case review for July 8, 2022 and the matter is expected to be concluded at that time.

In January 2020, the Company acquired Defenders, which was defending against litigation brought by Teddy Archer and seven other security advisors who claim unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act (the “FLSA”), breach of contract under state law in all states, and a violation of state wage-hour laws in California, New Jersey, New York, and Washington. The lawsuit was originally filed in March 2018 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. During 2018, the court conditionally certified the case as an FLSA collective action. The plaintiffs seek to represent a nationwide class for unpaid wages. During March 2021, Defenders was merged with and into the Company’s ADT LLC subsidiary, which is now defending the suit. In November 2021, the Company moved to decertify the collective action. Plaintiffs moved to certify a class for state law claims. The motions remain pending.

In April 2020, after investigating a customer inquiry, the Company self-disclosed that a former technician based in Dallas, Texas had, during service visits, added his personal email address to approximately 200 of the Company’s customers’ accounts, which provided this employee with varying levels of unauthorized personal access to such customers’ in-home security systems. In response, the Company initiated an affirmative outreach effort to notify all customers affected by this activity and to address their concerns. Since the disclosure, seven lawsuits have been filed against the Company, and the Company intervened in an eighth lawsuit filed against the former technician. Four of these lawsuits were originally filed as putative class actions and four as individual claims. One of the individual claims and one of the putative class actions subsequently settled.

In May 2020, the Company was served with a class action complaint in a case captioned Shana Doty v. ADT LLC and filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. By an amended complaint, the plaintiff asserted causes of action on behalf of herself and other Company customers similarly situated, and sought to recover damages for breach of contract, negligence, intrusion upon seclusion, violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, negligent hiring, supervision and retention, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Company moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s amended complaint.

In December 2020, the federal district court dismissed the causes of action for intrusion upon seclusion and violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and further ruled that plaintiff may not seek to hold the Company vicariously liable for any intentional torts committed by the former technician. The Company’s motion was denied on plaintiff’s other claims. In January 2022, plaintiff filed a notice withdrawing motion for class certification and dismissing class allegations. The case will now proceed as an individual action and is in discovery.

In June 2020, the Company was served with a class action complaint in a case captioned Alexia Preddy v. ADT LLC and filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. By an amended complaint, the plaintiff asserted causes of action on behalf of herself and others similarly situated as individuals residing in homes of Company customers, and sought to recover damages for negligence, intrusion upon seclusion, violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, negligent hiring, supervision and retention, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Company moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s amended complaint and to compel arbitration. In December 2020, the federal district court granted the Company’s motion to compel arbitration. The case is stayed and administratively closed and is proceeding in arbitration as an individual claim.

In April 2021, the Company accepted service of a new class action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on behalf of Randy Doty, the husband of the plaintiff in Shana Doty v. ADT LLC. The claims alleged in the new complaint are substantially similar to the claims asserted in Alexa Preddy v. ADT LLC, the case which has been stayed pending arbitration. In July 2021, the federal district court dismissed the claim for intrusion upon seclusion and ruled that the plaintiff cannot proceed on theories of vicarious liability for the technician’s intentional torts. As with the Shana Doty matter, plaintiff filed a notice withdrawing motion for class certification and dismissing class allegations. The case will now proceed as an individual action and is in discovery.

Following the November 2021 abandonment of their class action allegations, the lawyers in the Doty and Preddy cases filed a new complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on behalf of seven different customers and fourteen members of their respective households. The case is captioned Stefanie Bryant, et al. v. ADT LLC. The claims alleged in the new complaint are substantially similar to the claims asserted in Alexa Preddy v. ADT LLC, Shana Doty v. ADT LLC, and Randy Doty v. ADT LLC.