Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2025
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 or death, bodily harm, or damage to tangible personal property due to the Company’s personnel's gross negligence or willful misconduct in providing contracted services, 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, 2025 or December 31, 2024. (b) Contingencies Brazil Matter Following an internal review initiated in 2018, the Company disclosed its belief that its Brazilian subsidiary failed or likely failed to comply with local procurement regulations in conducting business with certain Brazilian government entities. In 2020 the Company learned that the Brazilian Federal Police were investigating alleged corruption and procurement fraud involving certain government officials, including a transaction that was part of the basis of the Company’s previously reported failure or likely failure of its Brazilian subsidiary to comply with local procurement regulations. To the best of the Company’s knowledge, this investigation was concluded in 2023. Neither employees of the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary nor the subsidiary itself were targets of the Federal Police investigation. The Company’s Brazilian subsidiary voluntarily disclosed information from its 2018 internal review to Brazil’s General Superintendence of the Administrative Council for Economic Defense (“SG/CADE”), the Federal Comptroller General (“CGU”), and the Office of the Comptroller General of the State of São Paulo (“CGE-SP”). Following this voluntary disclosure and cooperation with these agencies, the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary signed leniency agreements with the SG/CADE in September 2020, with the CGU and the Federal General Attorney’s Office (“AGU”) in July 2024, and with the CGE-SP and the Office of the Attorney General of the State of São Paulo (“PGE-SP”) in April 2025. In 2023, the SG/CADE launched a public administrative proceeding to investigate potentially anticompetitive conduct by various entities and individuals in Brazil based in part on the information voluntarily disclosed by the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary, which is also one of the defendants in the proceeding. If at the end of the proceeding, SG/CADE’s Tribunal confirms that the Brazilian subsidiary’s obligations under the leniency agreement it signed with SG/CADE have been fulfilled, the Brazilian subsidiary will receive full immunity from fines. Pursuant to its leniency agreement with the CGU and the AGU, the Brazilian subsidiary (i) paid approximately BRL 6.16 million (equivalent to approximately $1.1 million) in July 2024, (ii) agreed to certain undertakings regarding its compliance program, and (iii) has been granted immunity from debarment and other sanctions. As a result of this leniency agreement, the CGU dismissed its pending administrative action against the Brazilian subsidiary over alleged procurement violations. Pursuant to its leniency agreement with the CGE-SP and PGE-SP, the Brazilian subsidiary (i) paid approximately BRL 2.38 million (equivalent to approximately $406,000) in April 2025, and (ii) has been granted immunity from debarment and other sanctions. The Company’s Brazilian subsidiary continues to cooperate with requests from government authorities related to the above matters. As of June 30, 2025, the Company remained unable to reasonably estimate a range of loss beyond the 2024 third quarter payment and April 2025 payment described above. Shareholder and Derivative Actions Hamza Securities Action. On May 16, 2025, Anas Hamza filed a purported class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against the Company, Michael J. Saylor, Phong Q. Le, and Andrew Kang, alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Plaintiff Hamza purports to assert claims on behalf of a purported class of investors, for a period running from April 30, 2024 to April 4, 2025, alleging that the named defendants made false and/or misleading statements with respect to and/or failed to disclose information with respect to the anticipated profitability of the Company’s bitcoin-focused investment strategy and treasury operations, and the various risks associated with bitcoin’s volatility and the magnitude of the losses the Company could recognize following its adoption of ASU 2023-08. The complaint seeks unspecified damages to the class, interest, attorneys’ fees, costs, and other relief. The Company intends to vigorously defend against these claims. At this time, the Company cannot predict the outcome, or provide a reasonable estimate or range of estimates of the possible outcome or loss, if any, in this matter. Parmar Derivative Action. On June 19, 2025, Abhey Parmar filed a shareholder derivative lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against the Company’s officers and/or directors Michael J. Saylor, Phong Q. Le, Stephen X. Graham, Andrew Kang, Jarrod M. Patten, Carl J. Rickertsen, and former director Leslie J. Rechan, and against the Company as nominal defendant. Plaintiff Parmar purports to assert claims on behalf of the Company against the individual defendants for breaches of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, waste, and contribution. The complaint makes claims based on factual allegations similar to those asserted in the Hamza securities action described above, namely that the individual defendants caused or allowed the Company to make false or misleading disclosures or omissions, and failed to correct such false or misleading disclosures or omissions, concerning the risks and financial impact associated with the Company’s adoption of ASU 2023-08, the risks associated with bitcoin’s volatility, and the profitability of the Company’s bitcoin-driven strategy and treasury operations. The complaint also alleges the individual defendants caused the Company to fail to maintain adequate internal controls, and that Messrs. Le, Kang, Graham, and Rechan allegedly engaged in insider selling because they sold shares of the Company’s stock at various times from April 30, 2024 to April 4, 2025. The complaint seeks damages against the individual defendants on behalf of the Company, the imposition of certain corporate governance and internal procedures changes by the Company, restitution from the individual defendants, attorneys’ fees, costs, and other relief. The Company intends to vigorously defend against these claims. At this time, the Company cannot predict the outcome, or provide a reasonable estimate or range of estimates of the possible outcome or loss, if any, in this matter. Chen Derivative Action. On June 25, 2025, Zhenqiu Chen filed a shareholder derivative lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against the Company’s officers and/or directors Michael J. Saylor, Phong Q. Le, Andrew Kang, Brian P. Brooks, Jane A. Dietze, Jarrod M. Patten, Stephen X. Graham, Carl J. Rickertsen, Gregg J. Winiarski, and former director Leslie J. Rechan, and against the Company as nominal defendant. Plaintiff Chen purports to assert claims on behalf of the Company against the individual defendants for breaches of fiduciary duties, aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, waste, and contribution. The complaint makes claims based on factual allegations similar to those asserted in the Hamza securities action and the Parmar derivative action described above, namely that the individual defendants caused or allowed the Company to make false or misleading disclosures or omissions, and failed to correct such false or misleading disclosures or omissions, concerning the risks and financial impact associated with the Company’s adoption of ASU 2023-08, the risks associated with bitcoin’s volatility, and the profitability of the Company’s bitcoin-driven strategy and treasury operations. The complaint also alleges the individual defendants caused the Company to fail to maintain adequate internal controls, and that Messrs. Le, Kang, Graham, and Rechan allegedly engaged in insider selling because they sold shares of the Company’s stock at various times from April 30, 2024 to April 4, 2025. The complaint seeks money damages against the individual defendants, imposition of a constructive trust on damages allegedly caused and benefits allegedly received by the individual defendants as a result of their disputed conduct, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and other relief. The Company intends to vigorously defend against these claims. At this time, the Company cannot predict the outcome, or provide a reasonable estimate or range of estimates of the possible outcome or loss, if any, in this matter. Dodge Class Action. On July 21, 2025, David Dodge filed a purported class action lawsuit in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against the Company and the Company’s board of directors alleging violations of the Delaware General Corporation Law (the “DGCL”), and asserting a claim against the Company’s board of directors for breach of fiduciary duty in connection with the purported DGCL violation. Plaintiff Dodge purports to assert claims on behalf of himself and similarly situated holders of the Company’s common stock alleging that pursuant to Section 242 of the DGCL (“Section 242”), the holders of the Company’s common stock were entitled to vote on the STRK Amendment (as defined in Note 14, Subsequent Events) the Company filed on July 7, 2025 with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware. Refer to Note 14, Subsequent Events, for additional information on the STRK Amendment. Plaintiff Dodge seeks, among other things, an order (i) finding, determining and declaring that the Company violated Section 242; (ii) finding, determining and declaring that the board of directors has breached its fiduciary duties; (iii) deeming the STRK Amendment ineffective and requiring that the Company file a certificate of correction with the Delaware Secretary of State invalidating the STRK Amendment; (iv) awarding unspecified damages to Plaintiff Dodge and the class, including interest; (v) awarding attorneys’ fees and costs; and (vi) granting other relief. At this time, the Company cannot predict the outcome or provide a reasonable estimate or range of estimates of the possible outcome or loss, if any, in these matters. 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, 2025

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 or death, bodily harm, or damage to tangible personal property due to the Company’s personnel's gross negligence or willful misconduct

in providing contracted services, 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, 2025 or December 31, 2024.

(b) Contingencies

Brazil Matter

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

In 2020 the Company learned that the Brazilian Federal Police were investigating alleged corruption and procurement fraud involving certain government officials, including a transaction that was part of the basis of the Company’s previously reported failure or likely failure of its Brazilian subsidiary to comply with local procurement regulations. To the best of the Company’s knowledge, this investigation was concluded in 2023. Neither employees of the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary nor the subsidiary itself were targets of the Federal Police investigation.

The Company’s Brazilian subsidiary voluntarily disclosed information from its 2018 internal review to Brazil’s General Superintendence of the Administrative Council for Economic Defense (“SG/CADE”), the Federal Comptroller General (“CGU”), and the Office of the Comptroller General of the State of São Paulo (“CGE-SP”). Following this voluntary disclosure and cooperation with these agencies, the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary signed leniency agreements with the SG/CADE in September 2020, with the CGU and the Federal General Attorney’s Office (“AGU”) in July 2024, and with the CGE-SP and the Office of the Attorney General of the State of São Paulo (“PGE-SP”) in April 2025.

In 2023, the SG/CADE launched a public administrative proceeding to investigate potentially anticompetitive conduct by various entities and individuals in Brazil based in part on the information voluntarily disclosed by the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary, which is also one of the defendants in the proceeding. If at the end of the proceeding, SG/CADE’s Tribunal confirms that the Brazilian subsidiary’s obligations under the leniency agreement it signed with SG/CADE have been fulfilled, the Brazilian subsidiary will receive full immunity from fines.

Pursuant to its leniency agreement with the CGU and the AGU, the Brazilian subsidiary (i) paid approximately BRL 6.16 million (equivalent to approximately $1.1 million) in July 2024, (ii) agreed to certain undertakings regarding its compliance program, and (iii) has been granted immunity from debarment and other sanctions. As a result of this leniency agreement, the CGU dismissed its pending administrative action against the Brazilian subsidiary over alleged procurement violations.

Pursuant to its leniency agreement with the CGE-SP and PGE-SP, the Brazilian subsidiary (i) paid approximately BRL 2.38 million (equivalent to approximately $406,000) in April 2025, and (ii) has been granted immunity from debarment and other sanctions.

The Company’s Brazilian subsidiary continues to cooperate with requests from government authorities related to the above matters. As of June 30, 2025, the Company remained unable to reasonably estimate a range of loss beyond the 2024 third quarter payment and April 2025 payment described above.

Shareholder and Derivative Actions

Hamza Securities Action. On May 16, 2025, Anas Hamza filed a purported class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against the Company, Michael J. Saylor, Phong Q. Le, and Andrew Kang, alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Plaintiff Hamza purports to assert claims on behalf of a purported class of investors, for a period running from April 30, 2024 to April 4, 2025, alleging that the named defendants made false and/or misleading statements with respect to and/or failed to disclose information with respect to the anticipated profitability of the Company’s bitcoin-focused investment strategy and treasury operations, and the various risks associated with bitcoin’s volatility and the magnitude of the losses the Company could recognize following its adoption of ASU 2023-08. The complaint seeks unspecified damages to the class, interest, attorneys’ fees, costs, and other relief. The Company intends to vigorously defend against these claims. At this time, the Company cannot predict the outcome, or provide a reasonable estimate or range of estimates of the possible outcome or loss, if any, in this matter.

Parmar Derivative Action. On June 19, 2025, Abhey Parmar filed a shareholder derivative lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against the Company’s officers and/or directors Michael J. Saylor, Phong Q. Le, Stephen X. Graham, Andrew Kang, Jarrod M. Patten, Carl J. Rickertsen, and former director Leslie J. Rechan, and against the Company as nominal defendant. Plaintiff Parmar purports to assert claims on behalf of the Company against the individual defendants for breaches of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, waste, and contribution. The complaint makes claims based on factual allegations similar to those asserted in the Hamza securities action described above, namely that the individual defendants caused or allowed the Company to make false or misleading disclosures or omissions, and failed to correct such false or misleading disclosures or omissions, concerning the risks and financial impact associated with the Company’s adoption of ASU 2023-08, the risks associated with bitcoin’s volatility, and the

profitability of the Company’s bitcoin-driven strategy and treasury operations. The complaint also alleges the individual defendants caused the Company to fail to maintain adequate internal controls, and that Messrs. Le, Kang, Graham, and Rechan allegedly engaged in insider selling because they sold shares of the Company’s stock at various times from April 30, 2024 to April 4, 2025. The complaint seeks damages against the individual defendants on behalf of the Company, the imposition of certain corporate governance and internal procedures changes by the Company, restitution from the individual defendants, attorneys’ fees, costs, and other relief. The Company intends to vigorously defend against these claims. At this time, the Company cannot predict the outcome, or provide a reasonable estimate or range of estimates of the possible outcome or loss, if any, in this matter.

Chen Derivative Action. On June 25, 2025, Zhenqiu Chen filed a shareholder derivative lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against the Company’s officers and/or directors Michael J. Saylor, Phong Q. Le, Andrew Kang, Brian P. Brooks, Jane A. Dietze, Jarrod M. Patten, Stephen X. Graham, Carl J. Rickertsen, Gregg J. Winiarski, and former director Leslie J. Rechan, and against the Company as nominal defendant. Plaintiff Chen purports to assert claims on behalf of the Company against the individual defendants for breaches of fiduciary duties, aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, waste, and contribution. The complaint makes claims based on factual allegations similar to those asserted in the Hamza securities action and the Parmar derivative action described above, namely that the individual defendants caused or allowed the Company to make false or misleading disclosures or omissions, and failed to correct such false or misleading disclosures or omissions, concerning the risks and financial impact associated with the Company’s adoption of ASU 2023-08, the risks associated with bitcoin’s volatility, and the profitability of the Company’s bitcoin-driven strategy and treasury operations. The complaint also alleges the individual defendants caused the Company to fail to maintain adequate internal controls, and that Messrs. Le, Kang, Graham, and Rechan allegedly engaged in insider selling because they sold shares of the Company’s stock at various times from April 30, 2024 to April 4, 2025. The complaint seeks money damages against the individual defendants, imposition of a constructive trust on damages allegedly caused and benefits allegedly received by the individual defendants as a result of their disputed conduct, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and other relief. The Company intends to vigorously defend against these claims. At this time, the Company cannot predict the outcome, or provide a reasonable estimate or range of estimates of the possible outcome or loss, if any, in this matter.

Dodge Class Action. On July 21, 2025, David Dodge filed a purported class action lawsuit in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against the Company and the Company’s board of directors alleging violations of the Delaware General Corporation Law (the “DGCL”), and asserting a claim against the Company’s board of directors for breach of fiduciary duty in connection with the purported DGCL violation. Plaintiff Dodge purports to assert claims on behalf of himself and similarly situated holders of the Company’s common stock alleging that pursuant to Section 242 of the DGCL (“Section 242”), the holders of the Company’s common stock were entitled to vote on the STRK Amendment (as defined in Note 14, Subsequent Events) the Company filed on July 7, 2025 with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware. Refer to Note 14, Subsequent Events, for additional information on the STRK Amendment. Plaintiff Dodge seeks, among other things, an order (i) finding, determining and declaring that the Company violated Section 242; (ii) finding, determining and declaring that the board of directors has breached its fiduciary duties; (iii) deeming the STRK Amendment ineffective and requiring that the Company file a certificate of correction with the Delaware Secretary of State invalidating the STRK Amendment; (iv) awarding unspecified damages to Plaintiff Dodge and the class, including interest; (v) awarding attorneys’ fees and costs; and (vi) granting other relief. At this time, the Company cannot predict the outcome or provide a reasonable estimate or range of estimates of the possible outcome or loss, if any, in these matters.

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.