Trade Desk, Inc.TTD
Trade Desk, Inc. Commitments Disclosure
Note 13—Commitments and Contingencies
As of December 31, 2025, the Company had non-cancelable operating lease commitments for office and hosting space that were recorded as operating lease liabilities on the consolidated balance sheets. Refer to Note 8—Leases for additional information regarding lease commitments.
As of December 31, 2025, the Company had non-cancelable commitments primarily for its hosting services, hardware providers and providers of software as a service. As of December 31, 2025, these purchase obligations were as follows (in thousands):
| Year | Amount | |||||||
| 2026 | $ | 226,727 | ||||||
| 2027 | 34,181 | |||||||
| 2028 | 4,942 | |||||||
| 2029 | — | |||||||
| 2030 | — | |||||||
| $ | 265,850 | |||||||
Guarantees, Indemnification and Other
In the ordinary course of business, the Company may provide indemnifications of varying scope and terms to clients, vendors, lessors, business partners and other parties with respect to certain matters, including, but not limited to, losses arising out of breach of such agreements, services to be provided by the Company or from intellectual property infringement claims made by third parties. In addition, the Company has entered into indemnification agreements with directors and certain officers and employees that will require the Company, among other things, to indemnify them against certain liabilities that may arise by reason of their status or service as directors, officers or employees. In the ordinary course of business, demands have been made upon the Company to provide indemnification under such agreements, but there are no claims of which the Company is aware that could have a material effect on the Company’s consolidated balance sheets, statements of operations or statements of cash flows. Accordingly, no material amounts have been recorded as of December 31, 2025 and 2024.
The Company is under audit by various domestic and foreign tax authorities. The Company believes that the amount of losses or any estimable range of possible losses with respect to these matters will not, either individually or in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect on its business and consolidated financial statements. Due to the inherent complexity and uncertainty of these matters and judicial process in certain jurisdictions, the final outcome may be materially different from the Company’s expectations.
Litigation
From time to time, the Company is subject to various legal proceedings, litigation and claims, either asserted or unasserted, that arise in the ordinary course of business. Although the outcome of the various legal proceedings, litigation and claims cannot be predicted with certainty, management does not believe it is probable that any of these proceedings or other claims will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. Regardless of the outcome, litigation can have an adverse impact on the Company because of defense and settlement costs, diversion of management resources and other factors.
Litigation Related to 2021 CEO Performance Option
On May 27, 2022, a stockholder filed a derivative lawsuit captioned Huizenga v. Green, No. 2022-0461, asserting claims on behalf of the Company against certain members of the Company’s board of directors in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. On June 27, 2022, a second derivative lawsuit captioned Pfeiffer v. Green, No. 2022-0560, was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware alleging substantially similar claims. Those lawsuits were consolidated on August 18, 2022, and a lead plaintiff was appointed on October 7, 2022. The two complaints alleged generally that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Company and its stockholders in connection with the negotiation and approval of the CEO Performance Option. The plaintiffs sought a court order rescinding the CEO Performance Option and monetary damages. On November 10, 2022, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint, and on January 12, 2023, the defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint. On February 14, 2025, the court granted the motions to dismiss under Court of Chancery Rule 23.1 in their entirety and with prejudice, finding that the plaintiffs did not allege facts sufficient to infer that at least half of the Company’s board of directors received a material benefit from the CEO Performance Option, lacked independence from Mr. Green, or faced a “substantial likelihood of liability” from having approved the CEO Performance Option. The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the Court of Chancery’s decision. The parties completed briefing the appeal on June 13, 2025, and the Delaware Supreme Court heard oral argument on October 22, 2025. On November 5, 2025, the Delaware Supreme Court issued an order affirming the lower court ruling dismissing the action with prejudice.
Litigation Related to Reincorporation
On October 4, 2024, a stockholder filed a class action complaint in the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware alleging claims for breach of contract against the Company and breach of fiduciary duties against the Company’s directors, in connection with the Company’s reincorporation from Delaware to Nevada. Gunderson v. The Trade Desk, Inc., No. 2024-1029 (Del. Ch.) (the “Gunderson Action”). On October 24, 2024, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The complaint sought, among other things, an order declaring that the Company’s conversion required approval by a supermajority of the Company’s stockholders and an order enjoining the November 14, 2024 stockholder vote on the conversion. On October 28, 2024, the parties completed expedited briefing on cross motions for partial summary judgment regarding the causes of action asserted in the original complaint, and the court heard oral argument on the motions on October 30, 2024. On November 6, 2024, the court granted the defendants’ summary judgment motion and denied the plaintiff’s cross-motion, finding that the conversion did not require supermajority approval of the Company’s stockholders, and that the defendants did not breach their fiduciary duties by disclosing that the conversion required a vote of a simple majority of the Company’s stockholders. The plaintiff chose not to appeal. The case is now proceeding as to the plaintiff’s remaining claims that the Company’s directors breached their fiduciary duties because the reincorporation to Nevada was substantively and procedurally unfair, and that the transaction is not subject to the business judgment rule because it was not subject to approval by a special committee of the board or by a majority of the disinterested stockholders. The defendants have moved to dismiss, but no briefing schedule has been set. On April 28, 2025, the plaintiff in the Scarantino Action (as defined below) moved to intervene and stay the Gunderson Action. On May 20, 2025, the Court granted the motion to intervene and stayed the Gunderson Action pending completion of the books and records inspection in the Scarantino Action.
On November 15, 2024, a different stockholder filed a complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware requesting production of the Company’s corporate books and records relating to the Nevada conversion, pursuant to 8 Del. C. § 220. City of Roseville Employees Retirement System v. The Trade Desk, Inc., No. 2024-1173 (Del. Ch.). On November 27, 2024, the parties agreed to stay the proceeding in exchange for the production of certain documents to the plaintiff; the court granted the stay the same day. On April 18, 2025, the stockholder voluntarily dismissed the complaint without prejudice.
On April 24, 2025, a different stockholder filed a complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware requesting production of the Company’s corporate books and records relating to the Nevada conversion and the Company’s dual class capital structure, among other things, pursuant to 8 Del. C. § 220. Richard Scarantino v. The Trade Desk, Inc., No 2025-0442 (Del. Ch.) (the “Scarantino Action”). The case was referred to a Magistrate in Chancery for trial, and a trial was held on July 16, 2025. On July 31, 2025, the Magistrate in Chancery issued a final report, in which she found that the stockholder plaintiff could receive certain limited requested board materials. The stockholder plaintiff filed exceptions to the Magistrate’s final report, and briefing on plaintiff’s exceptions was completed on September 26, 2025. On December 5, 2025, the Vice Chancellor issued an order denying plaintiff's exceptions and affirming the Magistrate’s final ruling. On January 2, 2026, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of the Vice Chancellor’s December 5, 2025, order to the Delaware Supreme Court. The appeal remains pending.
Litigation Related to Securities Class Actions
On February 19, 2025, plaintiff United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers & Allied Workers Local Union No. 8 WBPA Fund filed a purported federal securities class action complaint in the United States District Court, Central District of California, captioned United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers, and Allied Workers Local Union No. 8 v. The Trade Desk, Inc. et al. (No. 2:25-cv-01396), against the Company as well as its Chief Executive Officer and then-Chief Financial Officer. The complaint alleged that the defendants made false and misleading statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The action purported to be brought on behalf of those who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company’s publicly traded securities between May 9, 2024 and February 12, 2025 and sought unspecified damages and other relief. On March 20, 2025, the court granted the parties’ joint stipulation, ordering that defendants need not respond to the complaint, pending the appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel.
On March 5, 2025, two additional related purported class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court, Central District of California, captioned Savorelli v. The Trade Desk, Inc. et al. (No. 2:25-cv-01915), bringing claims against the Company as well as its Chief Executive Officer and then-Chief Financial Officer, and New England Teamsters Pension Fund v. The Trade Desk, Inc. et al. (No. 2:25-cv-01936), bringing claims against the Company as well as its Chief Executive Officer, then-Chief Financial Officer and Chief Strategy Officer. Both complaints alleged that the defendants made false and misleading statements, similar to the allegations contained in the United Union of Roofers action, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The actions were also purportedly brought on behalf of those who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company’s publicly traded securities between May 9, 2024 and February 12, 2025 and sought unspecified damages and other relief. On March 18, 2025, the court entered orders relating the Savorelli and New England actions to the first-filed United Union of Roofers action, No. 2:25-cv-01396 (CAS). On March 28, 2025, the court granted the parties’ joint stipulations in the Savorelli and New England matters, ordering that defendants need not respond to the complaints, pending the appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel.
On April 21, 2025, several purported shareholders filed motions in the related actions seeking to be appointed lead plaintiff. On June 4, 2025, the court consolidated all three actions and recaptioned the action “In re The Trade Desk, Inc. Securities Litigation,” No. 2:25-cv-01396 (the “Consolidated Action”), and appointed Arkansas Public Employees Retirement System and Public Employees Retirement System of Mississippi as lead plaintiff in the Consolidated Action.
Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint (“First Amended Complaint”) on August 15, 2025. The First Amended Complaint purports to be brought on behalf of those who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company’s publicly traded securities between November 15, 2023 and August 8, 2025. It alleges that the defendants made false and misleading statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The First Amended Complaint also asserts a separate claim under Section 20A alleging that the Company’s Chief Executive Officer, then-Chief Financial Officer and Chief Strategy Officer engaged in insider trading during the proposed class period.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Action on October 14, 2025. The motion remains pending. The case is still in its early stages. Management believes these claims to be meritless and intends to vigorously defend against them.
Shareholder Derivative Actions
On March 6, 2025 and March 14, 2025, plaintiffs Nathan C. Silva and Daniel Jong, respectively, filed purported shareholder derivative complaints in the United States District Court, Central District of California, captioned Silva v. Green et al. (No. 2:25-cv-01975) and Jong v. Green et al. (No. 2:25-cv-02268), against current and former officers and directors of the Company, naming the Company as a nominal defendant. The complaints generally arise out of the same allegations contained in the securities class action and allege claims for breach of fiduciary duties and related claims. The actions purport to be brought derivatively on behalf of the Company and seek damages and other various forms of relief. On April 9, 2025, the court granted the parties’ stipulations consolidating the shareholder derivative actions and appointing Nathan C. Silva and Daniel Jong as co-plaintiffs and the Brown Law Firm, P.C. and Rigrodsky Law, P.A. as co-lead counsel for plaintiffs. On April 24, 2025, the court granted the parties' stipulation staying the consolidated derivative action until resolution of the motion(s) to dismiss the consolidated securities class action (described above). The order also provided that plaintiffs may file an amended complaint, but defendants are under no obligation to respond during the pendency of the stay.
On September 11, 2025, plaintiff Cara Gardner filed a purported shareholder derivative complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, captioned Cara Gardner v. Jeff T. Green et al. (No. 2:25-cv-01712), against current and former officers and directors of the Company, naming the Company as a nominal defendant. The complaint generally arises out of the same allegations contained in the securities class action and alleges claims for breach of fiduciary duties and related claims. The action purports to be brought derivatively on behalf of the Company and seeks damages and other various forms of relief.
On October 3, 2025, plaintiff Ahmed Ibrahim filed a purported shareholder derivative complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, captioned Ahmed Ibrahim v. Jeff T. Green et al. (No. 2:25-cv-01892), against current and former officers and directors of the Company, naming the Company as a nominal defendant. The complaint generally arises out of the same allegations contained in the securities class actions and alleges claims for breach of fiduciary duties and related claims. The action purports to be brought derivatively on behalf of the Company and seeks damages and other various forms of relief.
On October 24, 2025, the Court granted a joint stipulation filed by the Company and plaintiffs Cara Gardner and Ahmed Ibrahim to consolidate the Nevada derivative complaints and stay the actions until resolution of the motion to dismiss the Consolidated Action. The plaintiffs may file a consolidated complaint or designate an operative complaint, but defendants are under no obligation to respond during the pendency of the stay.
Litigation Related to the Company’s Platform and Related Offerings
On March 28, 2025, two complaints alleging various wiretapping and privacy tort theories were filed against the Company in the United States District Court, Northern District of California, captioned Michie & Dryer v. The Trade Desk, Inc., No. 3:25-cv-2889 (N.D. Cal.) and Hernandez-Mendoza v. The Trade Desk, Inc., No. 4:25-cv-02923 (N.D. Cal.). A third complaint advancing similar allegations, captioned Turner v. The Trade Desk, Inc., No. 3:25-cv-03136 (N.D. Cal.), was originally filed on March 31, 2025 in the United States District Court, Central District of California, but was voluntarily dismissed and refiled on April 7, 2025 in the United States District Court, Northern District of California. On June 18, 2025, the Court consolidated all three actions and recaptioned the consolidated action “In re The Trade Desk, Inc. Data Privacy Litigation” (No. 3:25-cv-2889), and appointed Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP as Interim Lead Counsel, with a Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee consisting of Simmons Hanly Conroy LLP, Lowey Dannenberg, P.C. and Bursor & Fisher, P.A. The complaints have now been consolidated into a single consolidated amended complaint, filed July 18, 2025. Plaintiffs seek class certification, unspecified damages, attorneys’ fees and various other forms of relief.
On December 18, 2025, the Court denied the Company’s motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint, except as to plaintiffs’ claim for declaratory relief, which the Court dismissed with prejudice. The case is still in its early stages. Management continues to believe the claims asserted in this action to be meritless and intends to vigorously defend against them.
Litigation is inherently uncertain and there can be no assurance that the defense of the various actions will be successful.
Employment Contracts
The Company has entered into agreements with severance terms with certain employees and officers. The Company may be required to accelerate the vesting of certain stock-based awards in the event of changes in control, as defined, and involuntary terminations.
Historical Timeline
| Fiscal Year | Filed | |
|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Feb 27, 2026 | Showing above |
| 2024 | Feb 21, 2025 | |
| 2023 | Feb 15, 2024 | |
| 2022 | Feb 15, 2023 | |
| 2021 | Feb 16, 2022 | |
| 2020 | Feb 19, 2021 | |
| 2019 | Feb 28, 2020 | |
| 2018 | Feb 22, 2019 | |
| 2017 | Feb 28, 2018 | |
| 2016 | Feb 16, 2017 | |
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.