Commitments and Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2026

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Music License Agreements

The Company is subject to minimum royalty payments associated with certain music license agreements. The following represents the Company's guaranteed payments under music license agreements, as of June 30, 2026:


	Future Minimum Payments
Fiscal Year Ended June 30,	(in millions)
2027	$	48.0
2028	42.0
2029	15.2



Total	$	105.2

Commitments to Suppliers

The Company utilizes a combination of in-house manufacturing and global sourcing with third-party manufacturing partners to build its products and accessories. These contract manufacturers and component suppliers acquire inventory and build products based on demand forecast information the Company supplies, which typically covers a rolling 12-month period. Consistent with industry practice, the Company acquires inventories from these suppliers through purchase orders against which orders are applied based on projected demand information and availability of goods. Such purchase commitments typically cover the Company’s forecasted product and manufacturing requirements for periods that range a number of months. In certain instances, these agreements allow the Company the option to cancel, reschedule, and/or adjust its requirements based on its business needs for a period of time before the order is due to be fulfilled. While the Company’s purchase orders are legally cancellable in many situations, there are some which are not cancellable in the event of a demand plan change or other circumstances, such as where the supplier has procured unique, Peloton- and Precor-specific designs, and/or specific non-cancellable, non-returnable components based on the Company’s provided forecasts.

Legal and Regulatory Proceedings

The Company is, or may become, a party to legal and regulatory proceedings with respect to a variety of matters in the ordinary course of its business, including the matters set forth below. The Company denies the allegations in the active matters described below and intends to vigorously defend against such matters.

Some of the Company’s legal and regulatory proceedings, including matters and litigation that center around intellectual property claims, may be based on complex claims involving substantial uncertainties and unascertainable damages. Accordingly, except for proceedings that have settled or been terminated, or except where otherwise indicated below, it is not possible to determine the probability of loss or estimate damages for such matters, and therefore, the Company has not established reserves for any of these proceedings. When the Company determines that a loss is both probable and reasonably estimable, the Company records a liability, and, if the liability is material, discloses the amount of the liability reserved.

Unless otherwise disclosed below, while it is reasonably possible that a loss may be incurred, the Company is unable to estimate a range of potential loss due to the complexity and current status of these lawsuits. In these matters, the Company has not established a reserve.

The Company evaluates, on a regular basis, developments in its legal proceedings and other contingencies that could affect the amount of liability, including amounts in excess of any previous accruals and reasonably possible losses disclosed, and makes adjustments and changes to the Company’s accruals and disclosures, as appropriate. For the matters the Company discloses that do not include an estimate of the amount of loss or range of losses, such an estimate is not possible or is immaterial.

Given that the Company’s legal and regulatory proceedings are subject to uncertainty, there can be no assurance that such legal and regulatory proceedings, either individually or in the aggregate, will not have a material adverse effect on its business, results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.

In May 2021, the Company initiated a voluntary recall of its Tread+ product in collaboration with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (“CPSC”). In December 2022, the Company entered into a settlement agreement with the CPSC regarding matters related to the Tread+ recall. In the settlement, the Company agreed to pay a $19.1 million civil penalty, resolving the CPSC’s charges that the Company violated the Consumer Product Safety Act (the “CPSA”). On May 18, 2023, the Company and the CPSC jointly announced the approval of a rear guard repair for the recalled Tread+. As previously disclosed, the Company was subpoenaed by the U.S. Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security for documents and other information related to the Company’s statutory obligations, including under the CPSA.

On May 11, 2023, in collaboration with the CPSC, the Company announced a voluntary recall of the Original Series Bike (not Bike+) sold in the U.S. from January 2018 to May 2023 related to its seat post, and the Company is offering a free replacement seat post as the approved repair. On June 9, 2023, Sam Solomon filed a putative securities class action against the Company and certain of the Company’s officers in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Case No. 1:23-cv-04279-MKB-JRC (the “2023 Securities Litigation”). Jia Tian and David Feigelman were appointed as co-lead plaintiffs. On November 6, 2023, co-lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint purportedly on behalf of a class consisting of those individuals who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company’s common stock between May 6, 2021 and August 22, 2023, alleging that the defendants made false and/or misleading statements relating to the seat post recall in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. On February 2, 2024, defendants served a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Briefing on defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the 2023 Securities Litigation was completed on May 17, 2024. On February 14, 2025, the court issued a memorandum and order granting defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissing the amended complaint with leave to file a second amended complaint. On April 11, 2025, co-lead plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint asserting similar claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, purportedly on behalf of the same proposed class. On May 21, 2025, defendants served a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. Briefing on defendants’ motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in the 2023 Securities Litigation was completed on July 28, 2025. On March 31, 2026, the court issued a memorandum and order granting defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissing the second amended complaint with prejudice. On April 30, 2026, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (the “Second Circuit”).

On September 27, 2023, Courtney Cooper and Abdo P. Faissal filed a verified stockholder derivative complaint, purportedly on behalf of the Company against certain of the Company’s officers and directors, captioned Cooper v. Boone, et. al., Case No. 23-cv-07193-MKB-MMH, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, which alleges breaches of fiduciary duties and violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act, as well as a claim for contribution under Sections 10(b) and 21D of the Exchange Act for any liability the Company may incur as a result of the 2023 Securities Litigation. On January 8, 2024, the court stayed the action pending resolution of the motion to dismiss in the 2023 Securities Litigation, including that any appeals have been concluded.

On May 5, 2022, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York consolidated two putative securities class action lawsuits against the Company and certain of the Company’s officers under the caption City of Hialeah Employees Retirement System et al. v. Peloton Interactive, Inc., et al., Case No. 21-CV-09582-ALC-OTW and appointed Robeco Capital Growth Funds SICAV – Robeco Global Consumer Trends as lead plaintiff in the class action (the “SDNY Class Action”). Lead plaintiff filed its amended complaint on June 25, 2022, alleging that the defendants made false and/or misleading statements about demand for the Company’s products and the reasons for the Company’s inventory growth, and engaged in improper trading in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20A of the Exchange Act. On March 30, 2023, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss, with leave to amend. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on May 6, 2023, purportedly on behalf of a class consisting of those individuals who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company’s common stock between February 5, 2021 and January 19, 2022, and defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on June 16, 2023. On September 30, 2024, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the second amended complaint with prejudice (the “Order”). On October 21, 2024, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the Order with the Second Circuit and filed their brief in support of their appeal on December 10, 2024. Defendants filed their responsive brief on January 28, 2025. The Second Circuit heard argument on the appeal on April 11, 2025. On August 27, 2025, the Second Circuit affirmed the Order in part, vacated the Order in part, and remanded the action to the district court for further proceedings, including to consider whether plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged other elements of their claims. The mandate to the district court was issued on September 18, 2025. Consistent with the Second Circuit’s decision, the district court dismissed three defendants from the case on September 10, 2025. The remaining defendants filed a renewed motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ claims in full on October 15, 2025. Briefing on defendants’ renewed motion to dismiss the SDNY Class Action was completed on December 10, 2025.

On July 26, 2023, the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware consolidated three stockholder derivative actions purportedly on behalf of the Company against certain of the Company’s officers and directors under the caption In re Peloton Interactive, Inc. 2023 Derivative Litigation, Consol. Case No. 2023-0224-KSJM, which alleges that defendants breached their fiduciary duties by purportedly making false statements about the demand for the Company’s products and engaging in improper trading. Allison Manzella, Clark Ovruchesky, Daniel Banks and Karen Florentino are co-lead plaintiffs. The court stayed the action on September 26, 2023 pending final resolution of all motions to dismiss in the SDNY Class Action, including that any appeals have been concluded.

On July 28, 2022, NEC Corporation (“NEC”) filed suit against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, Case No. 1:22-cv-00987, alleging that the Company’s use of third-party media players infringed three patents related to specific content streaming technologies and sought damages and injunctive relief. On April 8, 2024, the court stayed the case pending the resolution of inter partes review proceedings instituted by the Company against two of the patents-in-suit before the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (“PTAB”) of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. After the PTAB invalidated one of the patents-in-suit, on March 25, 2025, the court lifted the stay and the case proceeded with respect to the remaining two patents-in-suit (the “‘101 patent” and the “‘809 patent”). On June 30, 2026, the court granted the

Company’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement of the ‘809 patent. On July 10, 2026, the court granted NEC’s motion for summary judgment regarding the claim construction of certain terms in the ‘101 patent. On July 23, 2026, the court granted the Company’s motion for summary judgment of no pre-suit damages. The court held a jury trial on the ‘101 patent from July 27 to July 31, 2026. On July 31, 2026, the jury returned a verdict, finding that the ‘101 patent was infringed and not invalid on the basis of lack of written description, and awarded $20.5 million in past damages in the form of a running royalty through the date of the trial. The jury found that the Company was not liable for induced infringement, contributory infringement, or willful infringement of the ‘101 patent. The Company disagrees with the verdict with respect to direct infringement and invalidity, and is evaluating post-trial motion and appellate options.