Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2024
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	(6) Commitments and Contingencies (a) Commitments From time to time, the Company enters into certain types of contracts that require it to indemnify parties against third-party claims. These contracts primarily relate to agreements under which the Company assumes indemnity obligations for intellectual property infringement, as well as other obligations from time to time depending on arrangements negotiated with customers and other third parties. The conditions of these obligations vary. Thus, the overall maximum amount of the Company’s indemnification obligations cannot be reasonably estimated. Historically, the Company has not been obligated to make significant payments for these obligations and does not currently expect to incur any material obligations in the future. Accordingly, the Company has not recorded an indemnification liability on its Consolidated Balance Sheets as of June 30, 2024 or December 31, 2023. (b) Contingencies Brazil Matter Following an internal review initiated in 2018, the Company believes that its Brazilian subsidiary failed or likely failed to comply with local procurement regulations in conducting business with certain Brazilian government entities. On February 6, 2020, the Company learned that a Brazilian court authorized the Brazilian Federal Police to use certain investigative measures in its investigation into alleged corruption and procurement fraud involving certain government officials, pertaining to a particular transaction. The transaction at issue is part of the basis of the previously reported failure or likely failure of the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary to comply with local procurement regulations. The Company is not aware of any allegations that any former employee or the Company made any payments to Brazilian government officials. The Brazilian Federal Police expanded the investigation to include other possible cases of procurement fraud involving Brazilian government entities. Criminal penalties may be imposed against individuals; however, neither employees of the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary nor the subsidiary itself have been targets of the Federal Police investigation. On January 18, 2023, Brazil’s General Superintendence of the Administrative Council for Economic Defense (“SG/CADE”) launched an administrative proceeding to investigate potentially anticompetitive conduct, naming various individuals and companies as defendants including the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary. The proceeding involves conduct relating to transactions with certain Brazilian public and private entities that is part of the basis of the foregoing failure or likely failure of the Brazilian subsidiary to comply with local procurement regulations. The proceeding was precipitated by the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary’s voluntary disclosure of information to SG/CADE that arose out of the internal review initiated in 2018, and the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary has secured a leniency agreement with SG/CADE. If at the end of the proceeding, CADE’s Tribunal confirms that the leniency agreement obligations have been fulfilled, the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary will receive full immunity from fines. On July 4, 2024, the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary signed a leniency agreement with Brazil’s Federal Comptroller General (“CGU”) and Federal General Attorney’s Office (“AGU”). The leniency agreement resulted from the Brazilian subsidiary’s voluntary disclosure in 2018 to the CGU and AGU of information that arose out of the internal review initiated in 2018 and subsequent cooperation with the CGU and AGU. As a result of the leniency agreement, the Brazilian subsidiary (i) agreed to pay approximately BRL 6.16 million (equivalent to approximately USD 1.1 million), (ii) agreed to certain undertakings regarding its compliance program, and (iii) has been granted immunity from debarment and other sanctions. In addition, the CGU will dismiss its pending administrative action against the Brazilian subsidiary over alleged procurement violations. The Company previously had estimated a minimum loss of $1.2 million in respect of these matters and in prior periods established a reserve equal to such amount. The Company believes that additional losses are probable in connection with these Brazilian matters. As of June 30, 2024, the Company remained unable to reasonably estimate a range of loss beyond such minimum loss. The aggregate accrued amount for these matters is included as a component of “Accounts payable, accrued expenses, and operating lease liabilities” in the Consolidated Balance Sheets as of June 30, 2024 and December 31, 2023. The final outcome of these matters may result in a loss that is significantly greater than this accrued amount. Any loss associated with the final outcome of these matters may result in a material impact on the Company’s earnings and financial results for the period in which any such additional liability is accrued. However, the Company believes that any loss associated with the final outcome of these matters will not have a material effect on the Company’s financial position. Daedalus Matter As previously reported, on November 4, 2020, a complaint was filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia by a patent assertion entity called Daedalus Blue, LLC (“Daedalus”). In its complaint, Daedalus alleged that the Company infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 8,341,172 (the “’172 Patent”) and 9,032,076 (the “’076 Patent”) based on specific functionality in the MicroStrategy platform. The ’172 Patent relates to a method for providing aggregate data access in response to a query, whereas the ’076 Patent relates to a role-based access control system. On January 29, 2024, the parties executed a settlement agreement pursuant to which the Company received a fully paid-up license to all patents owned by Daedalus as of January 5, 2024, including the ’172 Patent and the ’076 Patent and filed a stipulation of dismissal with the court on February 27, 2024, which the court entered the same day thereby dismissing the case with prejudice. False Claims Act Matter On August 31, 2022, the District of Columbia (the “District”), through its Office of the Attorney General, filed a civil complaint in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia naming as defendants (i) Michael J. Saylor, the Chairman of the Company’s Board of Directors and the Company’s Executive Chairman, in his personal capacity, and (ii) the Company. The District sought, among other relief, monetary damages under the District’s False Claims Act for the alleged failure of Mr. Saylor to pay personal income taxes to the District over a number of years together with penalties, interest, and treble damages. The complaint alleged that the amount of personal income taxes purportedly involved was more than $25 million. The complaint also alleged in the sole claim against the Company that it violated the District’s False Claims Act by conspiring to assist Mr. Saylor’s alleged failure to pay personal income taxes. On October 26, 2022, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the District’s complaint. On February 28, 2023, the court ruled on the motion to dismiss, dismissing the sole claim against the Company as well as a claim against Mr. Saylor alleging that Mr. Saylor violated the District’s False Claims Act. The court did not dismiss claims against Mr. Saylor alleging that Mr. Saylor failed to pay personal income taxes, interest and penalties due. On April 13, 2023, the District, through its Office of the Attorney General, filed a motion to amend its complaint to attempt to restore claims under the False Claims Act against both Mr. Saylor and the Company. On May 10, 2023, the court granted the District’s motion to amend its complaint, reinstating the Company as a defendant in the case. The amended complaint alleged that the Company violated the District’s False Claims Act by making and using false records and statements in the form of false withholding filings with the District Office of Tax and Revenue. The amended complaint also alleged that Mr. Saylor violated the District’s False Claims Act by making and using false records and statements and by causing the Company to make and use false records and statements. On June 7, 2023, Mr. Saylor and the Company filed a motion to dismiss the District’s amended complaint with prejudice. On July 5, 2023, the District filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss made by Mr. Saylor and the Company. On July 19, 2023, Mr. Saylor and the Company filed a reply in support of their motion to dismiss. On July 31, 2023, the court denied Mr. Saylor’s and the Company’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On August 22, 2023, the Company and Mr. Saylor filed a motion asking the court to reconsider its July 31 decision or, in the alternative, to certify for interlocutory review two case-dispositive issues relating to the validity of tax-related amendments to the District’s False Claims Act and authority of the Office of the Attorney General to sue for allegedly unpaid taxes. On October 31, 2023, the court denied Mr. Saylor’s and the Company’s motion for reconsideration or, in the alternative, certification for interlocutory review. On May 31, 2024, the District, Mr. Saylor, and the Company stipulated to the entry of a Consent Order and Judgment (“Consent Order”) with the court pursuant to which the District, upon receipt of all amounts due under the Consent Order, released Mr. Saylor and the Company from all claims and liabilities that the District asserted, could have asserted, or may assert in the future based on the conduct described in the complaints filed in the case. Under the Consent Order, Mr. Saylor and the Company did not admit to any of the allegations encompassed by the conduct described in the complaint, any violation of law or regulation, any other matter of fact or law, or any liability or wrongdoing, and agreed to pay $40,000,000 to the District to settle the case and resolve the litigation with the District. Pursuant to a separate agreement between Mr. Saylor and the Company, Mr. Saylor paid this settlement amount to the District in full and the Company is not obligated to make any contribution to this settlement payment. On July 15, 2024, Mr. Saylor and the Company entered into a separate agreement with counsel to Tributum, LLC, the relator in the case (“Relator”), to resolve the amount due to such counsel in satisfaction of Relator’s claims for statutory expenses, attorneys’ fees and costs. Pursuant to the separate agreement between Mr. Saylor and the Company, Mr. Saylor paid this settlement amount in full and the Company is not obligated to make any contribution to this settlement payment. Various Legal Proceedings and Contingent Liabilities The Company is also involved in various legal proceedings arising in the normal course of business. Although the outcomes of these legal proceedings are inherently difficult to predict, management does not expect the resolution of these legal proceedings to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. The Company has contingent liabilities that, in management’s judgment, are not probable of assertion. If such unasserted contingent liabilities were to be asserted, or become probable of assertion, the Company may be required to record significant expenses and liabilities in the period in which these liabilities are asserted or become probable of assertion.

Commitments and Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2024

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

(6) Commitments and Contingencies

(a) Commitments

From time to time, the Company enters into certain types of contracts that require it to indemnify parties against third-party claims. These contracts primarily relate to agreements under which the Company assumes indemnity obligations for intellectual property infringement, as well as other obligations from time to time depending on arrangements negotiated with customers and other third parties. The conditions of these obligations vary. Thus, the overall maximum amount of the Company’s indemnification obligations cannot be reasonably estimated. Historically, the Company has not been obligated to make significant payments for these obligations and does not currently expect to incur any material obligations in the future. Accordingly, the Company has not recorded an indemnification liability on its Consolidated Balance Sheets as of June 30, 2024 or December 31, 2023.

(b) Contingencies

Brazil Matter

Following an internal review initiated in 2018, the Company believes that its Brazilian subsidiary failed or likely failed to comply with local procurement regulations in conducting business with certain Brazilian government entities.

On February 6, 2020, the Company learned that a Brazilian court authorized the Brazilian Federal Police to use certain investigative measures in its investigation into alleged corruption and procurement fraud involving certain government officials, pertaining to a particular transaction. The transaction at issue is part of the basis of the previously reported failure or likely failure of the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary to comply with local procurement regulations. The Company is not aware of any allegations that any former employee or the Company made any payments to Brazilian government officials. The Brazilian Federal Police expanded the investigation to include other possible cases of procurement fraud involving Brazilian government entities. Criminal penalties may be imposed against individuals; however, neither employees of the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary nor the subsidiary itself have been targets of the Federal Police investigation.

On January 18, 2023, Brazil’s General Superintendence of the Administrative Council for Economic Defense (“SG/CADE”) launched an administrative proceeding to investigate potentially anticompetitive conduct, naming various individuals and companies as defendants including the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary. The proceeding involves conduct relating to transactions with certain Brazilian public and private entities that is part of the basis of the foregoing failure or likely failure of the Brazilian subsidiary to comply with local procurement regulations. The proceeding was precipitated by the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary’s voluntary disclosure of information to SG/CADE that arose out of the internal review initiated in 2018, and the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary has secured a leniency agreement with SG/CADE. If at the end of the proceeding, CADE’s Tribunal confirms that the leniency agreement obligations have been fulfilled, the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary will receive full immunity from fines.

On July 4, 2024, the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary signed a leniency agreement with Brazil’s Federal Comptroller General (“CGU”) and Federal General Attorney’s Office (“AGU”). The leniency agreement resulted from the Brazilian subsidiary’s voluntary disclosure in 2018 to the CGU and AGU of information that arose out of the internal review initiated in 2018 and subsequent cooperation with the

CGU and AGU. As a result of the leniency agreement, the Brazilian subsidiary (i) agreed to pay approximately BRL 6.16 million (equivalent to approximately USD 1.1 million), (ii) agreed to certain undertakings regarding its compliance program, and (iii) has been granted immunity from debarment and other sanctions. In addition, the CGU will dismiss its pending administrative action against the Brazilian subsidiary over alleged procurement violations.

The Company previously had estimated a minimum loss of $1.2 million in respect of these matters and in prior periods established a reserve equal to such amount. The Company believes that additional losses are probable in connection with these Brazilian matters. As of June 30, 2024, the Company remained unable to reasonably estimate a range of loss beyond such minimum loss. The aggregate accrued amount for these matters is included as a component of “Accounts payable, accrued expenses, and operating lease liabilities” in the Consolidated Balance Sheets as of June 30, 2024 and December 31, 2023. The final outcome of these matters may result in a loss that is significantly greater than this accrued amount. Any loss associated with the final outcome of these matters may result in a material impact on the Company’s earnings and financial results for the period in which any such additional liability is accrued. However, the Company believes that any loss associated with the final outcome of these matters will not have a material effect on the Company’s financial position.

Daedalus Matter

As previously reported, on November 4, 2020, a complaint was filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia by a patent assertion entity called Daedalus Blue, LLC (“Daedalus”). In its complaint, Daedalus alleged that the Company infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 8,341,172 (the “’172 Patent”) and 9,032,076 (the “’076 Patent”) based on specific functionality in the MicroStrategy platform. The ’172 Patent relates to a method for providing aggregate data access in response to a query, whereas the ’076 Patent relates to a role-based access control system.

On January 29, 2024, the parties executed a settlement agreement pursuant to which the Company received a fully paid-up license to all patents owned by Daedalus as of January 5, 2024, including the ’172 Patent and the ’076 Patent and filed a stipulation of dismissal with the court on February 27, 2024, which the court entered the same day thereby dismissing the case with prejudice.

False Claims Act Matter

On August 31, 2022, the District of Columbia (the “District”), through its Office of the Attorney General, filed a civil complaint in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia naming as defendants (i) Michael J. Saylor, the Chairman of the Company’s Board of Directors and the Company’s Executive Chairman, in his personal capacity, and (ii) the Company. The District sought, among other relief, monetary damages under the District’s False Claims Act for the alleged failure of Mr. Saylor to pay personal income taxes to the District over a number of years together with penalties, interest, and treble damages. The complaint alleged that the amount of personal income taxes purportedly involved was more than $25 million. The complaint also alleged in the sole claim against the Company that it violated the District’s False Claims Act by conspiring to assist Mr. Saylor’s alleged failure to pay personal income taxes. On October 26, 2022, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the District’s complaint. On February 28, 2023, the court ruled on the motion to dismiss, dismissing the sole claim against the Company as well as a claim against Mr. Saylor alleging that Mr. Saylor violated the District’s False Claims Act. The court did not dismiss claims against Mr. Saylor alleging that Mr. Saylor failed to pay personal income taxes, interest and penalties due. On April 13, 2023, the District, through its Office of the Attorney General, filed a motion to amend its complaint to attempt to restore claims under the False Claims Act against both Mr. Saylor and the Company. On May 10, 2023, the court granted the District’s motion to amend its complaint, reinstating the Company as a defendant in the case. The amended complaint alleged that the Company violated the District’s False Claims Act by making and using false records and statements in the form of false withholding filings with the District Office of Tax and Revenue. The amended complaint also alleged that Mr. Saylor violated the District’s False Claims Act by making and using false records and statements and by causing the Company to make and use false records and statements. On June 7, 2023, Mr. Saylor and the Company filed a motion to dismiss the District’s amended complaint with prejudice. On July 5, 2023, the District filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss made by Mr. Saylor and the Company. On July 19, 2023, Mr. Saylor and the Company filed a reply in support of their motion to dismiss. On July 31, 2023, the court denied Mr. Saylor’s and the Company’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On August 22, 2023, the Company and Mr. Saylor filed a motion asking the court to reconsider its July 31 decision or, in the alternative, to certify for interlocutory review two case-dispositive issues relating to the validity of tax-related amendments to the District’s False Claims Act and authority of the Office of the Attorney General to sue for allegedly unpaid taxes. On October 31, 2023, the court denied Mr. Saylor’s and the Company’s motion for reconsideration or, in the alternative, certification for interlocutory review.

On May 31, 2024, the District, Mr. Saylor, and the Company stipulated to the entry of a Consent Order and Judgment (“Consent Order”) with the court pursuant to which the District, upon receipt of all amounts due under the Consent Order, released Mr. Saylor and the Company from all claims and liabilities that the District asserted, could have asserted, or may assert in the future based on the conduct described in the complaints filed in the case. Under the Consent Order, Mr. Saylor and the Company did not admit to any of the allegations encompassed by the conduct described in the complaint, any violation of law or regulation, any other matter of fact or law, or any liability or wrongdoing, and agreed to pay $40,000,000 to the District to settle the case and resolve the litigation with the District. Pursuant to a separate agreement between Mr. Saylor and the Company, Mr. Saylor paid this settlement amount to the District in full and the Company is not obligated to make any contribution to this settlement payment. On July 15, 2024, Mr. Saylor and the Company entered into a separate agreement with counsel to Tributum, LLC, the relator in the case (“Relator”), to resolve the amount due to such

counsel in satisfaction of Relator’s claims for statutory expenses, attorneys’ fees and costs. Pursuant to the separate agreement between Mr. Saylor and the Company, Mr. Saylor paid this settlement amount in full and the Company is not obligated to make any contribution to this settlement payment.

Various Legal Proceedings and Contingent Liabilities

The Company is also involved in various legal proceedings arising in the normal course of business. Although the outcomes of these legal proceedings are inherently difficult to predict, management does not expect the resolution of these legal proceedings to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

The Company has contingent liabilities that, in management’s judgment, are not probable of assertion. If such unasserted contingent liabilities were to be asserted, or become probable of assertion, the Company may be required to record significant expenses and liabilities in the period in which these liabilities are asserted or become probable of assertion.