Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2026
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies The Company is, from time to time, subject to claims and disputes arising in the normal course of business. In the opinion of management, the outcome of any such claims and disputes cannot be predicted with certainty. Legal Proceedings Against the Company As of March 31, 2026 and December 31, 2025, the Company had accrued legal contingencies of $2.9 million and $3.2 million, respectively, recorded within Accrued expenses and other current liabilities and Accounts payable for potential financial exposure related to ongoing legal matters, primarily related to breach of contracts and employment matters, which are deemed both probable of loss and reasonably estimable. Class and Derivative Actions Zhou v. Faraday Future Intelligent Electric Inc. f/k/a Property Solutions Acquisition Corp. et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-009914 (U.S. District Court – Central District of California). On December 23, 2021, a putative class action lawsuit alleging violations of the Exchange Act was filed in the United States District Court, Central District of California, against the Company and its former Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, and its then-Chief Product and User Ecosystem Officer (the Company’s current CEO; On May 6, 2022, the appointed lead plaintiffs in the Zhou putative class action filed an amended complaint alleging violations of Sections 10(b), 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act, and related “control” person claims for secondary liability under those statutes, seeking unspecified damages. Following motion to dismiss briefing and the subsequent court-ordered dismissal of several of the plaintiffs’ claims, answers were filed and the parties agreed to participate in mediation. On April 27, 2023, the court granted the parties’ joint motion for a temporary stay pending mediation. The parties thereafter participated in a private mediation on June 29, 2023. After further discussions and negotiations, the parties reached an agreement-in-principle to settle the Zhou putative class action. Although denying all allegations, the Company nevertheless agreed to settle the Zhou putative class action for a non-reversionary cash payment of $7.5 million to be funded entirely by the Company’s insurers for the benefit of the settlement class, in exchange for the release of all claims that were or could have been asserted against the Company. The court thereafter granted preliminary approval of the settlement on November 7, 2023, and scheduled a hearing for final approval of the settlement to take place on March 18, 2024. On January 23, 2024, the ostensible lead plaintiff in the Consolidated Delaware Class Action discussed below, filed an Objection to final approval of the settlement (the “Objection”) to which the Company and the other defendants responded on March 11, 2024. On March 18, 2024, the court overruled the Objection in its entirety and entered an Order finally approving the Zhou putative class action settlement. Farazmand v. Breitfeld et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-01570 (U.S. District Court – Central District of California). Zhou v Breitfeld et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-01852 (U.S. District Court – Central District of California). Moubarak v. Breitfeld et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00467 (U.S. District Court – District of Delaware). Wang v. Breitfeld et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00525 (U.S. District Court – District of Delaware). Wallace v. Breitfeld et al., Case No. 2023-0639-KSJM (Delaware Court of Chancery). Ashkan Farazmand and Wangjun Zhou v. Breitfeld, et al., Case No. 2023-1283 (Delaware Court of Chancery). On March 8 (Farazmand) and March 21 (Zhou), 2022, putative stockholder derivative lawsuits were respectively filed in the United States District Court, Central District of California and were subsequently consolidated in an action entitled In re Faraday Future Intelligent Electric Inc. Case No. 2:22-cv-1570 (the “California Federal Derivative Action”). The California Federal Derivative Action was stayed pending resolution of certain proceedings in the Zhou putative class action discussed above, which stay expired in February 2023. Plaintiffs thereafter filed a verified consolidated amended complaint on June 2, 2023, in response to which the Company and the other defendants filed a motion to dismiss. On January 22, 2024, the court granted in part, and denied in part, the motion to dismiss with leave to amend. On February 6, 2024, the parties filed a stipulation to stay the California Federal Derivative Action pending mediation that was entered by the court on February 12, 2024. On April 11 (Moubarak) and April 25 (Wang), 2022, putative stockholder derivative lawsuits were respectively filed in the United States Delaware District Court (collectively, the “Delaware Federal Derivative Actions”). On February 6, 2023, the Delaware Derivative Actions were stayed pending resolution of the pending proceedings in the Zhou putative class action. On June 21 (Wallace) and December 22 (Farazmand), 2023, putative derivative lawsuits were respectively filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery (collectively, the “Delaware State Derivative Actions”). The parties stipulated to a stay of the Wallace action which was entered by the court on December 29, 2023. Each of the foregoing derivative lawsuits purported to assert claims on behalf of the Company against certain of the Company’s current and former officers and directors for alleged violations of the Exchange Act or for various common law claims based upon those officers’ and directors’ alleged breaches of their purported fiduciary duties owed to the Company and/or for their alleged aiding and abetting of those purported breaches, resulting in unspecified damages to the Company. The complaints were generally premised upon many of the same underlying allegations made in the Zhou putative class action. The parties to the foregoing derivative lawsuits participated in a mediation on May 13, 2024, following which they reached a settlement in principle. On July 19, 2024, the parties entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement that was filed in the California Federal Derivative Action, which incorporated all of the foregoing derivative lawsuits respectively filed in California and Delaware. On September 3, 2024, the California Federal Derivative Action Court entered an order preliminarily approving the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement (the “Preliminary Approval Order”) and provided for notice of the same to be made to Current Stockholders. On October 30, 2024, the California Federal Derivative Action Court approved the Settlement Agreement, resolving all of the foregoing derivative lawsuits. Following the approval of the Settlement Agreement, the California Federal Derivative Action was dismissed on October 30, 2024 and the Delaware Federal Derivative Actions were dismissed on November 15, 2024 (Wang) and November 19, 2024 (Moubarak). On December 31, 2024, the parties in the Farazmand filed a stipulation of dismissal which was subsequently entered by the court. The Consolidated Delaware Class Action On June 14, 2022, a verified stockholder class action complaint was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery against, among others, the Company, its former Global CEO and CFO, and its then-Chief Product and User Ecosystem Officer, who currently serves as the Company’s CEO, alleging breaches of fiduciary duties (the “Yun Class Action”). On September 21, 2022, a second verified stockholder class action complaint was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery against, among others, the Company, the Company’s then-serving CEOs and independent directors of PSAC, and certain third-party advisors to PSAC, alleging breaches of fiduciary duties, among other things (the “Cleveland Class Action”). The Yun Class Action and Cleveland Class Action subsequently were consolidated (the “Consolidated Delaware Class Action”). On May 24, 2024, the defendants in the Consolidated Delaware Class Action filed a motion for summary judgment based upon a court-approved settlement agreement in the Zhou putative class action in California on the grounds that, among other things, the releases in the Zhou settlement barred the claims in the Consolidated Delaware Class Action. On February 10, 2025, the Delaware Court of Chancery granted summary judgment and dismissed the Consolidated Delaware Class Action in its entirety, with prejudice. Legal Proceedings Initiated by the Company The Company has determined there to be financial exposure related to an ongoing legal matter, primarily arising from the bankruptcy of a key supplier. The exposure involves previously recorded deposits and tooling equipment, which have since become subject to legal contingency considerations due to the supplier’s insolvency. The Company initially recorded $1.93 million in deposits and $12.9 million in tooling equipment in connection with its contractual relationship with a primary supplier. These amounts were originally recognized as a deposit paid for goods and services and tooling received, respectively, and continue to be reflected in their originally recorded accounts on the Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. However, following the primary supplier’s bankruptcy filing, these balances were identified as at risk, creating potential financial exposure for the Company. In 2024, the Company wrote-off $1.45 million of deposits. Additionally, the Company accrued $1.29 million for estimated payments to maintain access to its tooling located at vendors of the key supplier (the “secondary suppliers”). In 2025, there were no additional write-offs regarding this legal matter. The Company does not expect any further financial loss related to tooling. Although the Company has title to the tooling; the secondary suppliers have possession of it. The Company anticipates establishing a direct contractual arrangement with the secondary suppliers. Once in place, these agreements are expected to provide the Company with continued access to the tooling without additional financial exposure. Legal Action Against Tesca USA and Tesca ABC On March 6, 2025, Faraday&Future Inc. (“Faraday” or the “Company”) filed a demand for arbitration against Tesca USA, Inc. and Tesca ABC, LLC alleging the breach of an Engineering Services Agreement (“ESA”) between Tesca USA and Faraday&Future Inc., under which Tesca USA was obligated to produce certain items related to automobile seating assembly and frame production. Pursuant to the ESA, Faraday paid Tesca USA approximately $36.0 million for certain parts, tooling, engineering design and development, and other items. According to a Verified Petition Regarding Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors filed in May 2024, Tesca USA, after failing to deliver any of these products or services to Faraday, assigned all its assets to Tesca ABC, a Delaware series limited liability company. At a creditors' meeting in late March 2026, the court-appointed administrator informed the creditors and their representatives that it anticipates a dividend of between 1% and 2.5% of the submitted claims. This would amount to a sum of approximately CHF5,800 to CHF14,000 in Faraday's case (assuming Faraday’s claims are deemed admissible, which the administrator will determine in the quarter ending June 30, 2026), which does not substantially exceed the legal fees that would need to be incurred by the Company to recover such an amount. Because it does not appear to be financially worthwhile to pursue the matter actively, the Company is no longer pursuing this claim. Other Legal Matters On January 31, 2023, Raymond Handling Solutions, Inc. (“Raymond”), an equipment supplier, filed an action alleging that the Company breached its contract with Raymond and refused to pay for warehouse racking equipment. Raymond requested a judgment in its favor in the amount of $1.1 million. On April 15, 2024, the Company and Raymond executed a Settlement Agreement under which Raymond released all claims in exchange for the return of the racking equipment. In July 2021, the Company and Palantir entered into a Master Subscription Agreement (“MSA”) setting forth the terms of the Palantir platform hosting arrangement which was expected to be used as a central operating system for data and analytics. On April 26, 2023, the Company received a letter from Palantir Technologies Inc. (“Palantir”) providing a notice of dispute alleging that the Company had not paid outstanding invoices totaling $12.3 million. On July 7, 2023, Palantir filed a Demand for Arbitration against the Company with Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, Inc., regarding the parties’ dispute under the MSA in which it alleged that the amount in controversy was $41.5 million. On August 4, 2023, the Company submitted its response to Palantir’s arbitration demand, which response included both affirmative defenses and a general denial of all allegations of Palantir’s arbitration demand. On March 11, 2024, the Company and Palantir executed a Settlement and Release Agreement terminating the MSA and resolving all of the parties’ disputes in exchange for the Company’s agreement to pay Palantir $5.0 million, with a liquidated damages clause of $0.3 million for late payments. This settlement includes mutual waivers and releases of claims to avoid future disputes. On August 9, 2024, the Company and Palantir entered into an amendment to the Settlement and Release Agreement pursuant to which, in lieu of paying the remaining $4.8 million due under the settlement agreement in cash, the parties agreed that the Company would issue, and Palantir would accept, $2.4 million of Class A Common Stock by August 9, 2024, and $2.4 million in Class A Common Stock by October 1, 2024. The August 9, 2024 issuance totaled approximately 11.1 million shares of Common Stock. The Company further agreed to register the shares under the Securities Act for resale by Palantir. The Company performed its obligations under the settlement agreement and Palantir filed a dismissal fully and finally resolving the matter. On May 2, 2023, the Company received a notice of Commencement of Arbitration by Envisage Group Developments Inc. USA (“Envisage”) for unpaid invoices relating to professional engineering services and for design and manufacture of a Master Buck cube seeking alleged damages of $1.1 million. At the arbitration hearing, the Company disputed the adequacy of Envisage’s documentation for professional services and contended that no contract exists for Master Buck due to unfulfilled payment conditions. The Company further challenged Envisage’s unilateral alteration of payment terms. In June 2024, the arbitrator issued an award to Envisage totaling $1.1 million. Envisage subsequently filed a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. Envisage was ultimately awarded a total of $1.4 million. The parties have reached an agreement to settle their dispute for $0.8 million. The Company performed its obligations under the settlement agreement and Envisage filed a dismissal fully and finally resolving the matter. On June 13, 2023, L & W LLC (“Autokiniton”), a provider of tooling for use in the automotive industry, filed an action in State of Michigan 3rd Judicial Circuit County of Wayne Court alleging the Company breached its contract with Autokiniton and refused to fulfill its obligations under the applicable Purchase Order. Autokiniton requested a judgment in the amount of at least $8.1 million. In discovery, the Company conceded that $4.6 million was due and owing under the Purchase Order. In July 2024, the parties subsequently filed a stipulated order and judgment totaling $8.1 million, plus statutory interest, which was entered by the court. The parties are engaged in discussions regarding this matter. In December 2024, the parties reached an agreement to settle their dispute for $3.7 million. On October 11, 2023, Joseph Hof and Scott McPherson filed a class action lawsuit in Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York against Benchmark 237 LLC, Benchmark Real Estate Trust, SLLC, Canvas Investment Partners, LLC, Canvas Property Group, LLC, Juliet Technologies, LLC, and the Company, alleging that the defendants engaged in various scheming practices that discriminatorily impacted the plaintiffs and other class members The court granted the Company’s Motion to Dismiss on January 12, 2024, and dismissed the case on January 18, 2024. The plaintiffs filed an appeal on February 12, 2024 as to the dismissal orders, which appeal subsequently was dismissed due to the plaintiffs’ failure to timely file their appellate briefs. Plaintiffs have a year to file a motion to vacate the dismissal based upon a showing good cause, Plaintiff Hof filed a motion to seal the record and expressed the Plaintiffs’ desire to cease litigating the matter further. On December 8, 2023, 10701 Idaho Owner, LLC (“Landlord”) notified the Company of rental defaults amounting to $0.6 million for the months of October to December 2023 and demanded a 5% late fee and 18% annual interest on allegedly overdue amounts. The parties thereafter entered into a First Amendment to the Lease Agreement dated October 19, 2023 to address the Company’s total rent default of $1.1 million, including a $0.1 million, partial payment made on January 26, 2024, and additional late fees and charges of $0.2 million. The amendment established a repayment plan requiring the Company to pay $1.2 million from February 26 to March 31, 2024, and to either replenish or provide a new $0.6 million Letter of Credit. On March 26, 2024, the Landlord served the Company with a Notice to Pay or Quit, demanding payment of $1.0 million within five business days. On April 10, 2024, the Company made a $0.2 million payment to Landlord in exchange for Landlord deferring further action. On February 14, 2024, Rexford Industrial - 18455 Figueroa, LLC (“Rexford”) filed a Complaint for Unlawful Detainer against Faraday SPE, LLC in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. The complaint asserted that the Company has failed to pay outstanding rent in the amount of $0.9 million, and sought recovery of reasonable attorney’s fees and damages. This action was based on an alleged breach of a Lease Agreement dated March 8, 2019, for the premises located at 18455 S. Figueroa Street, Gardena, California, and wherein Rexford is requesting forfeiture of the lease. On April 10, 2024, the court issued a Notice of Dismissal, dismissing the Complaint without prejudice. In February 2024, the Company initiated a lawsuit against Draexlmaier Automotive Technologies of America LLC (“Draexlmaier”) for breach of contract, seeking $3.2 million in damages plus legal costs incurred. The dispute involves two Purchase Orders placed by the Company with Draexlmaier in September 2021 for the development and tooling of FF 91 vehicle consoles. The parties’ agreement included a clause allowing Faraday to terminate the Purchase Orders at any time, with the understanding that Draexlmaier would promptly refund any advanced payments for undelivered items or unperformed work. Faraday met its financial obligations under the agreement and in March 2022, terminated the agreement prior to the start of tooling fabrication and requested a refund of $3.2 million for the undelivered work, which Draexlmaier refund failed to remit. Faraday thereafter issued a final demand for this refund in August 2023, and subsequently initiated its lawsuit against Draexlmaier. In May 2024, Draexlmaier filed an Answer and Counterclaim alleging fraudulent inducement, breach of contract, violations of South Carolina’s Unfair Trade Practices Act, and unjust enrichment, and seeking $5.0 million in damages for breach of contract, as well as unspecified actual, consequential, punitive, and treble damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs. The Company disputes Draexlmaier’s claims and stated its intention to vigorously defend the action. In June 2025, the court granted each party’s motions to dismiss with respect to the other party’s unjust enrichment claim, but otherwise denied both motions. On February 9, 2026, the parties attended a mediation in Greenville, South Carolina, which ultimately led to a settlement agreement on April 7, 2026, for $0.5 million. On March 25, 2024, Cooper Standard GmbH (“Cooper Standard”) filed a lawsuit against Faraday&Future Inc. in Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, alleging the non-payment of the estimated sum of $1.5 million that was purportedly in breach of contractual obligations set forth in purchase orders, a Letter of Tool Acceptance, and invoices to facilitate the supply of automotive products and services for the FF 91 vehicle from August 2021 to December 2022. The parties have tentatively reached a settlement and are in the process of memorializing their agreement. In June 2025, the parties reached an agreement to settle their dispute for $0.8 million. On March 27 and March 29, 2024, Jose Guerrero and Victoria Xie, the Company’s former Senior Director of Sales and Aftersales, and Go-to-Market Project Manager and Launch Manager, respectively, filed wrongful termination lawsuits against Faraday&Future Inc. and certain of its officers in Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, each of which seeks compensatory, general, and special damages in an amount not less than $1.0 million. On April 19, 2024, another former employee, Karimul Khan, submitted a request for arbitration against the same group of defendants without quantifying the alleged damages sought. Based on the evidence produced thus far in the Khan matter, the Company believes it is more likely than not to prevail in the Khan matter. Given the early stages of the other legal proceedings, the Company is unable to evaluate the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome and/or the amount or range of potential loss. On August 9, 2024, Jeffrey D. Prol, as trustee of the Founding Future Creditors Trust, filed a lawsuit against the Company seeking to compel the production of certain books and records for inspection and requesting attorney’s fees and costs. The plaintiff is demanding inspection to allegedly value his shares of the Company. In March 2025, plaintiff agreed to dismiss the lawsuit without prejudice and a stipulation to dismiss was filed and granted. On August 1, 2024, Yun Han, former Chief Accounting Officer and Interim Chief Financial Officer, filed an arbitration demand claiming that she is owed certain monetary amounts and restricted stock units, pursuant to various agreements with the Company and collectively, totaling approximately $1.2 million. Given the early stages of the proceedings, the Company is unable to evaluate the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome and/or the amount or range of potential loss. In March 2025, BXP filed a lawsuit against the Company, alleging unpaid rent and a balance of approximately $1.0 million under a lease agreement signed with the Company. The parties agreed to settle their dispute for $0.4 million. In May 2025, Costamp Group, as assignee of Vantage Cast Europe, s.r.l. (“Vantage”), filed a lawsuit against the Company, alleging the non-payment of the estimated sum of €2.8 million. Plaintiff alleges that in or about March 2022, Faraday contracted with Vantage to supply automotive component parts pursuant to Faraday's unique specifications. In or about May 2022, Vantage, in reliance on the contract with Faraday, contracted with Costamp Group (a subsidiary of Plaintiff) to supply automotive component parts to Vantage. The claim alleges that Vantage and Costamp Group fully complied with their obligations in manufacturing automotive component parts pursuant to Faraday's specifications and that Vantage sent Faraday invoices and Faraday accepted and paid for its initial orders, but has since refused to accept delivery of the specially manufactured automotive components. The parties have settled their dispute for $1.6 million. In April 2026, JVIS-USA, LLC filed a lawsuit against the Company, alleging the non-payment of the estimated sum of $1.1 million. Plaintiff alleges that the Company contracted with Plaintiff to produce tooling and provide goods and services. Upon conclusion of the parties’ business relationship, Plaintiff alleges that the Company agreed to pay monthly storage fees to hold the tooling until the Company arranged for its disposition at a set storage rate for certain months in 2025. Once a portion of the tooling was removed, Plaintiff alleges that the parties agreed upon a reduced storage rate beginning in July 2025. Plaintiff alleges that the Company has not paid all of the storage fees due and owing and has not removed certain tooling items at Plaintiff’s facilities. Given the early stages of the proceedings, the Company is unable to evaluate the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome and/or the amount or range of potential loss. Dispute with Noteholders In August 2023 and September 2023, the Company received correspondence from each of Senyun, MHL and V W Investment alleging that the Company had entered into oral agreements to compensate those investors for any losses in connection with converting their notes into shares of the Company in order to support the Company’s proposals at the August 2023 special stockholders meeting. The Company is unaware of any such oral agreements and is contesting these claims on multiple grounds. Special Committee Investigation As previously disclosed, the Board established a special committee of independent directors (“Special Committee”) to investigate allegations of inaccurate Company disclosures, including those made in an October 2021 short seller report and whistleblower allegations, which resulted in the Company being unable to timely file its third quarter 2021 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021, first quarter 2022 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q and amended Registration Statement on Form S-1 (File No. 333-258993). On February 1, 2022, certain members of the management team and employees of the Company received a notice of preservation and subpoena from the staff of the SEC stating that the SEC had commenced a formal investigation relating to the matters that were the subject of the Special Committee investigation. On March 18, 2026, the Company received a letter from the Division of Enforcement of the SEC stating that, it does not intend to recommend an enforcement action by the SEC against the Company. The Company previously disclosed that the investigation related to certain matters involving its 2021 PIPE and SPAC-related transactions, and that the SEC had issued Wells Notices to the Company and certain executives. The Wells Notices were not formal charges, and the SEC Division of Enforcement has now formally informed the Company, Mr. Jia and Mr. Wang that it has concluded its investigation and is not recommending an enforcement action against any of them. Other than disclosed herein, as of the date hereof the Company is not a party to any legal proceedings the outcome of which, if determined adversely to the Company, would individually or in the aggregate be reasonably expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition, or results of operations.

On December 23, 2021, a putative class action lawsuit alleging violations of the Exchange Act was filed in the United States District Court, Central District of California, against the Company and its former Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, and its then-Chief Product and User Ecosystem Officer (the Company’s current CEO; On May 6, 2022, the appointed lead plaintiffs in the Zhou putative class action filed an amended complaint alleging violations of Sections 10(b), 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act, and related “control” person claims for secondary liability under those statutes, seeking unspecified damages. Following motion to dismiss briefing and the subsequent court-ordered dismissal of several of the plaintiffs’ claims, answers were filed and the parties agreed to participate in mediation. On April 27, 2023, the court granted the parties’ joint motion for a temporary stay pending mediation. The parties thereafter participated in a private mediation on June 29, 2023. After further discussions and negotiations, the parties reached an agreement-in-principle to settle the Zhou putative class action. Although denying all allegations, the Company nevertheless agreed to settle the Zhou putative class action for a non-reversionary cash payment of $7.5 million to be funded entirely by the Company’s insurers for the benefit of the settlement class, in exchange for the release of all claims that were or could have been asserted against the Company. The court thereafter granted preliminary approval of the settlement on November 7, 2023, and scheduled a hearing for final approval of the settlement to take place on March 18, 2024. On January 23, 2024, the ostensible lead plaintiff in the Consolidated Delaware Class Action discussed below, filed an Objection to final approval of the settlement (the “Objection”) to which the Company and the other defendants responded on March 11, 2024. On March 18, 2024, the court overruled the Objection in its entirety and entered an Order finally approving the Zhou putative class action settlement.

On March 8 (Farazmand) and March 21 (Zhou), 2022, putative stockholder derivative lawsuits were respectively filed in the United States District Court, Central District of California and were subsequently consolidated in an action entitled In re Faraday Future Intelligent Electric Inc. Case No. 2:22-cv-1570 (the “California Federal Derivative Action”). The California Federal Derivative Action was stayed pending resolution of certain proceedings in the Zhou putative class action discussed above, which stay expired in February 2023. Plaintiffs thereafter filed a verified consolidated amended complaint on June 2, 2023, in response to which the Company and the other defendants filed a motion to dismiss. On January 22, 2024, the court granted in part, and denied in part, the motion to dismiss with leave to amend. On February 6, 2024, the parties filed a stipulation to stay the California Federal Derivative Action pending mediation that was entered by the court on February 12, 2024.

Each of the foregoing derivative lawsuits purported to assert claims on behalf of the Company against certain of the Company’s current and former officers and directors for alleged violations of the Exchange Act or for various common law claims based upon those officers’ and directors’ alleged breaches of their purported fiduciary duties owed to the Company and/or for their alleged aiding and abetting of those purported breaches, resulting in unspecified damages to the Company. The complaints were generally premised upon many of the same underlying allegations made in the Zhou putative class action. The parties to the foregoing derivative lawsuits participated in a mediation on May 13, 2024, following which they reached a settlement in principle. On July 19, 2024, the parties entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement that was filed in the California Federal Derivative Action, which incorporated all of the foregoing derivative lawsuits respectively filed in California and Delaware. On September 3, 2024, the California Federal Derivative Action Court entered an order preliminarily approving the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement (the “Preliminary Approval Order”) and provided for notice of the same to be made to Current Stockholders. On October 30, 2024, the California Federal Derivative Action Court approved the Settlement Agreement, resolving all of the foregoing derivative lawsuits. Following the approval of the Settlement Agreement, the California Federal Derivative Action was dismissed on October 30, 2024 and the Delaware Federal Derivative Actions were dismissed on November 15, 2024 (Wang) and November 19, 2024 (Moubarak). On December 31, 2024, the parties in the Farazmand filed a stipulation of dismissal which was subsequently entered by the court.

On June 14, 2022, a verified stockholder class action complaint was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery against, among others, the Company, its former Global CEO and CFO, and its then-Chief Product and User Ecosystem Officer, who currently serves as the Company’s CEO, alleging breaches of fiduciary duties (the “Yun Class Action”). On September 21, 2022, a second verified stockholder class action complaint was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery against, among others, the Company, the Company’s then-serving CEOs and independent directors of PSAC, and certain third-party advisors to PSAC, alleging breaches of fiduciary duties, among other things (the “Cleveland Class Action”). The Yun Class Action and Cleveland Class Action subsequently were consolidated (the “Consolidated Delaware Class Action”). On May 24, 2024, the defendants in the Consolidated Delaware Class Action filed a motion for summary judgment based upon a court-approved settlement agreement in the Zhou putative class action in California on the grounds that, among other things, the releases in the Zhou settlement barred the claims in the Consolidated Delaware Class Action. On February 10, 2025, the Delaware Court of Chancery granted summary judgment and dismissed the Consolidated Delaware Class Action in its entirety, with prejudice.

The Company initially recorded $1.93 million in deposits and $12.9 million in tooling equipment in connection with its contractual relationship with a primary supplier. These amounts were originally recognized as a deposit paid for goods and services and tooling received, respectively, and continue to be reflected in their originally recorded accounts on the Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. However, following the primary supplier’s bankruptcy filing, these balances were identified as at risk, creating potential financial exposure for the Company. In 2024, the Company wrote-off $1.45 million of deposits. Additionally, the Company accrued $1.29 million for estimated payments to maintain access to its tooling located at vendors of the key supplier (the “secondary suppliers”). In 2025, there were no additional write-offs regarding this legal matter.

On March 6, 2025, Faraday&Future Inc. (“Faraday” or the “Company”) filed a demand for arbitration against Tesca USA, Inc. and Tesca ABC, LLC alleging the breach of an Engineering Services Agreement (“ESA”) between Tesca USA and Faraday&Future Inc., under which Tesca USA was obligated to produce certain items related to automobile seating assembly and frame production. Pursuant to the ESA, Faraday paid Tesca USA approximately $36.0 million for certain parts, tooling, engineering design and development, and other items. According to a Verified Petition Regarding Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors filed in May 2024, Tesca USA, after failing to deliver any of these products or services to Faraday, assigned all its assets to Tesca ABC, a Delaware series limited liability company. At a creditors' meeting in late March 2026, the court-appointed administrator informed the creditors and their representatives that it anticipates a dividend of between 1% and 2.5% of the submitted claims. This would amount to a sum of approximately CHF5,800 to CHF14,000 in Faraday's case (assuming Faraday’s claims are deemed admissible, which the administrator will determine in the quarter ending June 30, 2026), which does not substantially exceed the legal fees that would need to be incurred by the Company to recover such an amount. Because it does not appear to be financially worthwhile to pursue the matter actively, the Company is no longer pursuing this claim.

On January 31, 2023, Raymond Handling Solutions, Inc. (“Raymond”), an equipment supplier, filed an action alleging that the Company breached its contract with Raymond and refused to pay for warehouse racking equipment. Raymond requested a judgment in its favor in the amount of $1.1 million. On April 15, 2024, the Company and Raymond executed a Settlement Agreement under which Raymond released all claims in exchange for the return of the racking equipment.

In July 2021, the Company and Palantir entered into a Master Subscription Agreement (“MSA”) setting forth the terms of the Palantir platform hosting arrangement which was expected to be used as a central operating system for data and analytics. On April 26, 2023, the Company received a letter from Palantir Technologies Inc. (“Palantir”) providing a notice of dispute alleging that the Company had not paid outstanding invoices totaling $12.3 million. On July 7, 2023, Palantir filed a Demand for Arbitration against the Company with Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, Inc., regarding the parties’ dispute under the MSA in which it alleged that the amount in controversy was $41.5 million. On August 4, 2023, the Company submitted its response to Palantir’s arbitration demand, which response included both affirmative defenses and a general denial of all allegations of Palantir’s arbitration demand. On March 11, 2024, the Company and Palantir executed a Settlement and Release Agreement terminating the MSA and resolving all of the parties’ disputes in exchange for the Company’s agreement to pay Palantir $5.0 million, with a liquidated damages clause of $0.3 million for late payments. This settlement includes mutual waivers and releases of claims to avoid future disputes. On August 9, 2024, the Company and Palantir entered into an amendment to the Settlement and Release Agreement pursuant to which, in lieu of paying the remaining $4.8 million due under the settlement agreement in cash, the parties agreed that the Company would issue, and Palantir would accept, $2.4 million of Class A Common Stock by August 9, 2024, and $2.4 million in Class A Common Stock by October 1, 2024. The August 9, 2024 issuance totaled approximately 11.1 million shares of Common Stock. The Company further agreed to register the shares under the Securities Act for resale by Palantir. The Company performed its obligations under the settlement agreement and Palantir filed a dismissal fully and finally resolving the matter.

On May 2, 2023, the Company received a notice of Commencement of Arbitration by Envisage Group Developments Inc. USA (“Envisage”) for unpaid invoices relating to professional engineering services and for design and manufacture of a Master Buck cube seeking alleged damages of $1.1 million. At the arbitration hearing, the Company disputed the adequacy of Envisage’s documentation for professional services and contended that no contract exists for Master Buck due to unfulfilled payment conditions. The Company further challenged Envisage’s unilateral alteration of payment terms. In June 2024, the arbitrator issued an award to Envisage totaling $1.1 million. Envisage subsequently filed a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. Envisage was ultimately awarded a total of $1.4 million. The parties have reached an agreement to settle their dispute for $0.8 million. The Company performed its obligations under the settlement agreement and Envisage filed a dismissal fully and finally resolving the matter.

On June 13, 2023, L & W LLC (“Autokiniton”), a provider of tooling for use in the automotive industry, filed an action in State of Michigan 3rd Judicial Circuit County of Wayne Court alleging the Company breached its contract with Autokiniton and refused to fulfill its obligations under the applicable Purchase Order. Autokiniton requested a judgment in the amount of at least $8.1 million. In discovery, the Company conceded that $4.6 million was due and owing under the Purchase Order. In July 2024, the parties subsequently filed a stipulated order and judgment totaling $8.1 million, plus statutory interest, which was entered by the court. The parties are engaged in discussions regarding this matter. In December 2024, the parties reached an agreement to settle their dispute for $3.7 million.

LLC, Canvas Property Group, LLC, Juliet Technologies, LLC, and the Company, alleging that the defendants engaged in various scheming practices that discriminatorily impacted the plaintiffs and other class members The court granted the Company’s Motion to Dismiss on January 12, 2024, and dismissed the case on January 18, 2024. The plaintiffs filed an appeal on February 12, 2024 as to the dismissal orders, which appeal subsequently was dismissed due to the plaintiffs’ failure to timely file their appellate briefs. Plaintiffs have a year to file a motion to vacate the dismissal based upon a showing good cause, Plaintiff Hof filed a motion to seal the record and expressed the Plaintiffs’ desire to cease litigating the matter further.

On December 8, 2023, 10701 Idaho Owner, LLC (“Landlord”) notified the Company of rental defaults amounting to $0.6 million for the months of October to December 2023 and demanded a 5% late fee and 18% annual interest on allegedly overdue amounts. The parties thereafter entered into a First Amendment to the Lease Agreement dated October 19, 2023 to address the Company’s total rent default of $1.1 million, including a $0.1 million, partial payment made on January 26, 2024, and additional late fees and charges of $0.2 million. The amendment established a repayment plan requiring the Company to pay $1.2 million from February 26 to March 31, 2024, and to either replenish or provide a new $0.6 million Letter of Credit. On March 26, 2024, the Landlord served the Company with a Notice to Pay or Quit, demanding payment of $1.0 million within five business days. On April 10, 2024, the Company made a $0.2 million payment to Landlord in exchange for Landlord deferring further action.

On February 14, 2024, Rexford Industrial - 18455 Figueroa, LLC (“Rexford”) filed a Complaint for Unlawful Detainer against Faraday SPE, LLC in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. The complaint asserted that the Company has failed to pay outstanding rent in the amount of $0.9 million, and sought recovery of reasonable attorney’s fees and damages. This action was based on an alleged breach of a Lease Agreement dated March 8, 2019, for the premises located at 18455 S. Figueroa Street, Gardena, California, and wherein Rexford is requesting forfeiture of the lease. On April 10, 2024, the court issued a Notice of Dismissal, dismissing the Complaint without prejudice.

In February 2024, the Company initiated a lawsuit against Draexlmaier Automotive Technologies of America LLC (“Draexlmaier”) for breach of contract, seeking $3.2 million in damages plus legal costs incurred. The dispute involves two Purchase Orders placed by the Company with Draexlmaier in September 2021 for the development and tooling of FF 91 vehicle consoles. The parties’ agreement included a clause allowing Faraday to terminate the Purchase Orders at any time, with the understanding that Draexlmaier would promptly refund any advanced payments for undelivered items or unperformed work. Faraday met its financial obligations under the agreement and in March 2022, terminated the agreement prior to the start of tooling fabrication and requested a refund of $3.2 million for the undelivered work, which Draexlmaier refund failed to remit. Faraday thereafter issued a final demand for this refund in August 2023, and subsequently initiated its lawsuit against Draexlmaier. In May 2024, Draexlmaier filed an Answer and Counterclaim alleging fraudulent inducement, breach of contract, violations of South Carolina’s Unfair Trade Practices Act, and unjust enrichment, and seeking $5.0 million in damages for breach of contract, as well as unspecified actual, consequential, punitive, and treble damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs. The Company disputes Draexlmaier’s claims and stated its intention to vigorously defend the action. In June 2025, the court granted each party’s motions to dismiss with respect to the other party’s unjust enrichment claim, but otherwise denied both motions. On February 9, 2026, the parties attended a mediation in Greenville, South Carolina, which ultimately led to a settlement agreement on April 7, 2026, for $0.5 million.

On March 25, 2024, Cooper Standard GmbH (“Cooper Standard”) filed a lawsuit against Faraday&Future Inc. in Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, alleging the non-payment of the estimated sum of $1.5 million that was purportedly in breach of contractual obligations set forth in purchase orders, a Letter of Tool Acceptance, and invoices to facilitate the supply of automotive products and services for the FF 91 vehicle from August 2021 to December 2022. The parties have tentatively reached a settlement and are in the process of memorializing their agreement. In June 2025, the parties reached an agreement to settle their dispute for $0.8 million.

On March 27 and March 29, 2024, Jose Guerrero and Victoria Xie, the Company’s former Senior Director of Sales and Aftersales, and Go-to-Market Project Manager and Launch Manager, respectively, filed wrongful termination lawsuits against Faraday&Future Inc. and certain of its officers in Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, each of which seeks compensatory, general, and special damages in an amount not less than $1.0 million. On April 19, 2024, another former employee, Karimul Khan, submitted a request for arbitration against the same group of defendants without quantifying the alleged damages sought. Based on the evidence produced thus far in the Khan matter, the Company believes it is more likely than not to prevail in the Khan matter. Given the early stages of the other legal proceedings, the Company is unable to evaluate the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome and/or the amount or range of potential loss.

On August 1, 2024, Yun Han, former Chief Accounting Officer and Interim Chief Financial Officer, filed an arbitration demand claiming that she is owed certain monetary amounts and restricted stock units, pursuant to various agreements with the Company and collectively, totaling approximately $1.2 million. Given the early stages of the proceedings, the Company is unable to evaluate the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome and/or the amount or range of potential loss.

In May 2025, Costamp Group, as assignee of Vantage Cast Europe, s.r.l. (“Vantage”), filed a lawsuit against the Company, alleging the non-payment of the estimated sum of €2.8 million. Plaintiff alleges that in or about March 2022, Faraday contracted with Vantage to supply automotive component parts pursuant to Faraday's unique specifications. In or about May 2022, Vantage, in reliance on the contract with Faraday, contracted with Costamp Group (a subsidiary of Plaintiff) to supply automotive component parts to Vantage. The claim alleges that Vantage and Costamp Group fully complied with their obligations in manufacturing automotive component parts pursuant to Faraday's specifications and that Vantage sent Faraday invoices and Faraday accepted and paid for its initial orders, but has since refused to accept delivery of the specially manufactured automotive components. The parties have settled their dispute for $1.6 million.

In April 2026, JVIS-USA, LLC filed a lawsuit against the Company, alleging the non-payment of the estimated sum of $1.1 million. Plaintiff alleges that the Company contracted with Plaintiff to produce tooling and provide goods and services. Upon conclusion of the parties’ business relationship, Plaintiff alleges that the Company agreed to pay monthly storage fees to hold the tooling until the Company arranged for its disposition at a set storage rate for certain months in 2025. Once a portion of the tooling was removed, Plaintiff alleges that the parties agreed upon a reduced storage rate beginning in July 2025. Plaintiff alleges that the Company has not paid all of the storage fees due and owing and has not removed certain tooling items at Plaintiff’s facilities. Given the early stages of the proceedings, the Company is unable to evaluate the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome and/or the amount or range of potential loss.

In August 2023 and September 2023, the Company received correspondence from each of Senyun, MHL and V W Investment alleging that the Company had entered into oral agreements to compensate those investors for any losses in connection with converting their notes into shares of the Company in order to support the Company’s proposals at the August 2023 special stockholders meeting. The Company is unaware of any such oral agreements and is contesting these claims on multiple grounds.

As previously disclosed, the Board established a special committee of independent directors (“Special Committee”) to investigate allegations of inaccurate Company disclosures, including those made in an October 2021 short seller report and whistleblower allegations, which resulted in the Company being unable to timely file its third quarter 2021 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021, first quarter 2022 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q and amended Registration Statement on Form S-1 (File No. 333-258993).

On March 18, 2026, the Company received a letter from the Division of Enforcement of the SEC stating that, it does not intend to recommend an enforcement action by the SEC against the Company. The Company previously disclosed that the investigation related to certain matters involving its 2021 PIPE and SPAC-related transactions, and that the SEC had issued Wells Notices to the Company and certain executives. The Wells Notices were not formal charges, and the SEC Division of Enforcement has now formally informed the Company, Mr. Jia and Mr. Wang that it has concluded its investigation and is not recommending an enforcement action against any of them.