Keurig Dr Pepper Inc.KDP
Keurig Dr Pepper Inc. Commitments Disclosure
Commitments and Contingencies
We are occasionally subject to litigation or other legal proceedings. We accrue for specific legal proceedings when we determine that the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome is probable and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated, and such accruals were $3 million and $2 million as of December 31, 2025 and 2024, respectively. We have also identified certain other legal matters where we believe an unfavorable outcome is reasonably possible and/or for which no estimate of possible losses can be made. We do not believe that the outcome of these, or any other, pending legal matters, individually or collectively, will have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition, or liquidity.
ANTITRUST LITIGATION
In February 2014, TreeHouse Foods, Inc. and certain affiliated entities filed suit against our wholly-owned subsidiary, Keurig (formerly known as Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc.), in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ("SDNY") (TreeHouse Foods, Inc. et al. v. Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc. et al.). The TreeHouse complaint asserted claims under the federal antitrust laws and various state laws, contending that Keurig had monopolized alleged markets for single serve coffee brewers and single serve coffee pods. The TreeHouse complaint sought treble monetary damages, declaratory relief, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees. In the months that followed, a number of additional actions, including claims from another coffee manufacturer (JBR, Inc.), as well as putative class actions on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers of Keurig's products, were filed in various federal district courts, asserting claims and seeking relief substantially similar to the claims asserted and relief sought in the TreeHouse complaint. Additional similar actions were filed by individual direct purchasers (including McLane Company, Inc., BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc., Winn-Dixie Stores Inc. and Bi-Lo Holding LLC) in 2019 and in 2021. All of these actions were transferred to the SDNY for coordinated pre-trial proceedings (In re: Keurig Green Mountain Single-Serve Coffee Antitrust Litigation) (the "Multidistrict Antitrust Litigation").
In July 2020, Keurig reached an agreement with one of the plaintiff groups in the Multidistrict Antitrust Litigation, the putative indirect purchaser class, to settle the claims asserted for $31 million. The settlement class consisted of individuals and entities in the United States that purchased, from persons other than Keurig and not for purposes of resale, Keurig manufactured or licensed single serve beverage portion packs during the applicable class period (beginning in September 2010 for most states). The settlement was approved and paid, and the indirect purchasers' claims have been dismissed.
In October 2025, the SDNY court denied the direct purchasers plaintiffs' motion for class certification. While the court’s order does not preclude individual purchasers from pursuing their own direct claims, the court found that the plaintiffs did not meet the federal requirements to pursue their case on a classwide basis. The direct purchaser plaintiffs have filed a petition with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, seeking to appeal the SDNY court’s decision.
Discovery in all remaining matters pending in the Multidistrict Antitrust Litigation is concluded, with the plaintiffs (which no longer include the purported direct purchaser class) collectively claiming approximately $1.5 billion of monetary damages. Keurig strongly disputes the merits of the claims and the calculation of damages. Keurig has fully briefed summary judgment motions that, if successful, would end the cases entirely.
Keurig intends to continue vigorously defending the remaining lawsuits. At this time, we are unable to predict the outcome of these lawsuits, the potential loss or range of loss, if any, associated with the resolution of these lawsuits or any potential effect they may have on us or our operations. Accordingly, we have not accrued for a loss contingency. Additionally, as the timelines in these cases may be beyond our control, we can provide no assurance as to whether or when there will be material developments in these matters.
ENVIRONMENTAL, HEALTH, AND SAFETY MATTERS
We operate many manufacturing, bottling, and distribution facilities. In these and other aspects of our business, we are subject to a variety of federal, state, and local environmental, health, and safety laws and regulations. We maintain environmental, health, and safety policies and a quality environmental, health, and safety program designed to ensure compliance with applicable laws and regulations. However, the nature of our business exposes us to the risk of claims with respect to environmental, health, and safety matters, and there can be no assurance that material costs or liabilities will not be incurred in connection with such claims.
The federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, also known as the Superfund law, as well as similar state laws, generally impose joint and several liability for cleanup and enforcement costs on current and former owners and operators of a site without regard to fault or the legality of the original conduct. We were notified by the Environmental Protection Agency that we are a potentially responsible party for study and cleanup costs at Superfund sites in New Jersey and in Michigan. Investigation and remediation costs are yet to be determined, therefore no reasonable estimate exists on which to base a loss accrual.
PRODUCT WARRANTIES
We offer a one year warranty on all Keurig brewing systems. We provide for the estimated cost of product warranties, primarily using historical information and current repair or replacement costs, at the time product revenue is recognized. Product warranties are included in accrued expenses in the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets.
| (in millions) | Accrued Product Warranties | ||||
| Balance as of December 31, 2023 | $ | 11 | |||
| Accruals for warranties issued | 14 | ||||
| Settlements | (15) | ||||
| Balance as of December 31, 2024 | 10 | ||||
| Accruals for warranties issued | 8 | ||||
| Settlements | (12) | ||||
| Balance as of December 31, 2025 | $ | 6 | |||
Historical Timeline
| Fiscal Year | Filed | |
|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Feb 24, 2026 | Showing above |
| 2024 | Feb 25, 2025 | |
| 2023 | Feb 22, 2024 | |
| 2022 | Feb 23, 2023 | |
| 2021 | Feb 24, 2022 | |
| 2020 | Feb 25, 2021 | |
| 2019 | Feb 27, 2020 | |
| 2018 | Feb 28, 2019 | |
| 2017 | Feb 14, 2018 | |
| 2016 | Feb 14, 2017 | |
| 2015 | Feb 23, 2016 | |
About Commitments Disclosures
Commitments and contingencies disclosures catalog a company's off-balance-sheet obligations and legal exposures — purchase commitments, guarantee arrangements, pending litigation, and regulatory proceedings. These items represent potential future cash outflows that may not appear as liabilities on the balance sheet until they become probable and estimable.
Key signals: litigation reserves and disclosed loss ranges quantify management's estimate of legal exposure, but unquantified "reasonably possible" losses often represent the larger risk. Watch for changes in language around pending cases — shifts from "remote" to "reasonably possible" or increases in estimated loss ranges signal deteriorating outcomes. Unconditional purchase obligations and take-or-pay contracts create fixed cost structures that reduce operational flexibility. Guarantee arrangements for subsidiaries or joint ventures can create cascading obligations. Compare the total commitment schedule against projected free cash flow to assess whether the company can meet its obligations without additional financing.