COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2025

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Contractual Obligations

As of June 30, 2025 and December 31, 2024, the Company had $1.1 billion and $1.0 billion in commitments related to AMP-1 and AMP-2 plant and equipment, respectively. These commitments represent future expected payments on open purchase orders entered into as of June 30, 2025 and December 31, 2024.

The Company’s non-cancellable long-term commitments primarily related to certain inventory component purchases. On October 1, 2024, the Company entered into amendments (the “Amendments”) to certain battery-supply agreements with Panasonic Energy Co., Ltd. and certain of its affiliates. As of June 30, 2025, pursuant to the terms of the Amendments, the Company had remaining minimum purchase commitments of an aggregate of approximately $2.55 billion, calculated using the current base prices, which could vary period-to-period primarily as a result of changes in raw material indexes. The estimated future payments having a remaining term in excess of one year as of June 30, 2025 were as follows (in thousands):


Years ended December 31,	Minimum Purchase Commitment
2025 (remainder of the year)	$	101,466
2026	296,610
2027	386,965
2028	459,349
2029	452,240
Thereafter	925,400
Total	$	2,622,030

Legal Matters

From time-to-time, the Company may become subject to legal proceedings, claims and litigation arising in the ordinary course of business. Some of these claims, lawsuits and other proceedings may involve highly complex issues that are subject to substantial uncertainties, and could result in damages, fines, penalties, non-monetary sanctions or relief.

On April 1, 2022, and May 31, 2022, two alleged shareholders filed putative class actions under the federal securities laws in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against Lucid Group, Inc. and certain officers of the Company relating to alleged statements, updated projections and guidance provided from late 2021 to early 2022. The two matters were consolidated as In re Lucid Group, Inc. Securities Litigation. The consolidated complaint named Lucid Group, Inc. and the Company’s former chief executive officer and former chief financial officer as defendants, and generally alleged that defendants purportedly made false or misleading statements regarding delivery and revenue projections and related matters between November 15, 2021, and August 3, 2022. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on February 23, 2023. On August 8, 2024, the Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss. On September 20, 2024, Plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint, which named the Company and its former chief executive officer as defendants. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Consolidated Complaint, in part, on December 6, 2024. On May 22, 2025, the court issued a ruling granting in part and denying in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss. As a result, the parties have transitioned into the discovery phase of the litigation.

Eight purported shareholders have filed derivative cases in various courts putatively on behalf of the Company against certain of the Company’s current and former directors based on allegations similar to those in the In re Lucid Group, Inc. Securities Litigation action. These cases raise claims such as a breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, waste of corporate assets, and aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty. On July 11, 2022, a derivative case raising such claims was filed in the Superior Court of California, Alameda County, and is currently stayed. Between September 2024 and December 2024, three other derivative lawsuits were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery raising similar claims. Two were consolidated into a single action. Between January 29, 2025, and February 7, 2025, two other derivative lawsuits were filed in the Northern District of California also raising similar claims. The parties have submitted a stipulation to consolidate and stay the cases. Between February 28, 2025, and March 7, 2025, two other derivative lawsuits raising similar claims were also filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. They were consolidated into a single action and are currently stayed.

Moreover, on March 25, 2021, the Illinois Automobile Dealers Association, Chicago Automobile Trade Association, Peoria Metro New Car Dealers Association, Illinois Motorcycle Dealers Association, and 241 individual motor vehicle dealers filed an action against the Office of the Illinois Secretary of State (“SOS”), Jesse White, in his official capacity as the Illinois Secretary of State; Lucid USA, Inc. (“Lucid USA”); and other defendants, in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, County Department, Chancery Division, Case No. 2021CH01438. The suit generally alleges that Illinois law does not permit manufacturers to obtain licenses as motor vehicle dealers. Plaintiffs seek to prevent Lucid from engaging in the sale of motor vehicles directly to consumers. The SOS granted Lucid USA a dealer’s license on June 3, 2021. In December 2022, the Court granted Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs subsequently appealed and the decision was affirmed by the First District Appellate Court on August 23, 2024. Plaintiffs filed a petition for further review of the case by the Illinois Supreme Court and the Illinois Supreme Court denied review.

Furthermore, while we have registered and applied for trademarks in an effort to protect our brand and goodwill with customers, competitors or other third parties have previously opposed, currently oppose, and may continue to oppose our trademark applications or otherwise challenge our use of the trademarks and other brand names in which we have invested. Such oppositions and challenges can be expensive and may adversely affect our ability to maintain the goodwill gained in connection with a particular trademark. In addition, we may lose our trademark or be unable to submit specimens of use by the applicable deadline to perfect such trademark rights.

At this time, the Company does not consider any such claims, lawsuits or proceedings that are currently pending, individually or in the aggregate, including the matters referenced above, to be material to the Company’s business or likely to result in a material adverse effect on its future operating results, financial condition or cash flows should such proceedings be resolved unfavorably.

Indemnification

In the ordinary course of business, the Company may provide indemnification of varying scope and terms to customers, vendors, investors, directors, officers, and certain key employees with respect to certain matters, including, but not limited to, losses arising out of our breach of such agreements, services to be provided by the Company, or from intellectual property infringement claims made by third parties. These indemnification provisions may survive termination of the underlying agreement and the maximum potential amount of future payments the Company could be required to make under these indemnification provisions may not be subject to maximum loss clauses. The maximum potential amount of future payments the Company could be required to make under these indemnification provisions is indeterminable. The Company has never paid a material claim, nor has it been sued in connection with these indemnification arrangements. The Company has indemnification obligations with respect to letters of credit and surety bond primarily used as security against facility leases, utilities infrastructure and other agreements that require securitization. The indemnification obligations were $115.9 million and $72.6 million as of June 30, 2025 and December 31, 2024, respectively, for which no liabilities are recorded in the condensed consolidated balance sheets.