Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Commitments and Contingencies	Sep. 30, 2025
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Purchase Obligations The Company purchases goods and services from a variety of suppliers in the ordinary course of business. Purchase obligations are defined as agreements that are enforceable and legally binding and that specify all significant terms, including fixed or minimum quantities to be purchased, fixed, minimum, or variable price provisions, and the approximate timing of the transaction. The Company had purchase obligations primarily for purchases of inventory, R&D, and general and administrative activities totaling $74.4 million as of September 30, 2025. Legal Matters From time to time, the Company is involved in actions, claims, suits and other proceedings in the ordinary course of business, including assertions by third parties relating to intellectual property infringement, breaches of contract or warranties or employment-related matters. When it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated, the Company records a liability for such loss contingencies. The Company’s estimates regarding potential losses and materiality are based on the Company’s judgment and assessment of the claims utilizing currently available information. Although the Company will continue to reassess its reserves and estimates based on future developments, the Company’s objective assessment of the legal merits of such claims may not always be predictive of the outcome and actual results may vary from the Company’s current estimates. The Company’s current legal accrual is not material to the financial statements. Johnson v. Luminar Technologies, Inc., et al. On May 26, 2023, a putative class action styled Johnson v. Luminar Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 6:23-cv-00982-PGB-LHP, was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, against the Company and an employee. The suit asserts purported claims on behalf of purchasers of the Company’s securities between February 28, 2023 and March 17, 2023 under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act for allegedly misleading statements regarding the Company’s photonic integrated circuits technology. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on December 29, 2023, the motion was granted, and on July 8, 2024 Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on August 22, 2024, and the motion was granted on December 12, 2024. Plaintiff filed a third amended complaint and Defendants filed their motion to dismiss the third amended complaint on February 24, 2025, and the motion was denied on September 10, 2025. The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend the litigation. On October 21, 2023, a shareholder derivative suit entitled Bhavsar v. McAuliffe, et al. Bhavsar v. McAuliffe, et al., No. 6:23-cv-02037 was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida against directors of the Company and an employee. The suit avers claims for purported breaches of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, waste, aiding and abetting, and contribution under Sections 10(b) and 21D of the Exchange Act on the basis of the same purported wrongdoing alleged in the first lawsuit described above. In November 2023, three additional shareholder derivative suits averring similar claims to Bhavsar were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware: Lance Dechant, et al. v. Alec E. Gores, et al., C.A. No. 23-cv-01318-UNA, Hutchinson v. Russell, et al., C.A. No. 23-cv-01345-UNA, and Ulerio v. Russell, et al., C.A. No. 23-cv-01359-UNA. The Company disputes the allegations in the complaint and intends to vigorously defend the litigation. The Company has determined that the likelihood of this matter resulting in a material adverse impact on the Company’s financial results is remote. Yskollari v. Luminar Technologies, Inc., et al. On July 23, 2025, a putative class action entitled Yskollari v. Luminar Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. Case 6:25-cv-01384, was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, against the Company and former and current employees. The suit asserts purported claims on behalf of purchasers of the Company’s securities between March 20, 2025, and May 14, 2025 under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act for allegedly misleading statements regarding the former CEO’s conduct and seeks compensatory damages. The Company intends to vigorously defend the litigation. On August 21, 2025, a shareholder derivative suit entitled Buttrey v. Russell, et al., No. 6:25-cv-01592-CEM-NWH (M.D. Fla.) was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida against the board and current and former employees alleging claims for breach of fiduciary duties, and for violations of Sections 10(b), 20(a) and 21D of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on the same alleged facts and circumstances described in the Yskollari putative securities class action. In September 2025, two other shareholder derivative lawsuits averring similar claims to Buttrey were filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida: Bandele v. Russell, et al., No. 6:25-cv-01699-CEM-NWH, and Levitan v. Fennimore et al., No. 6:25-cv-01840-CEM-DCI. On October 4, 2025, the plaintiffs in these three shareholder derivative suits filed a motion to consolidate the three actions. The Company disputes the allegations in the complaints and intends to vigorously defend the litigation. SEC Investigation The Company recently received a subpoena from the SEC for documents in connection with an investigation the SEC is conducting to determine whether there has been a violation of federal securities laws. The Company is cooperating with the investigation. The SEC informed the Company that its investigation does not mean that it has concluded that anyone has violated the law and that receipt of the subpoena does not mean that the SEC has a negative opinion of any person, entity, or security. The Company, however, can offer no assurances as to the outcome of this investigation or its potential effect, if any, on the Company.