Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2023
Commitments and Contingencies	10. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Warranties and Indemnification The Company’s commercial services are typically warranted to perform in a manner consistent with general industry standards that are reasonably applicable and materially in accordance with the Company’s documentation under normal use and circumstances. The Company’s arrangements generally include certain provisions for indemnifying customers against liabilities if its products or services infringe third- party intellectual property rights. To date, the Company has not incurred any material costs as a result of such obligations and has not accrued any liabilities related to such obligations in the accompanying consolidated financial statements. Stockholder Lawsuit In May 2022, a securities class action complaint captioned Leacock v. IonQ, Inc. et al., Case No. 8:22-cv-01306, was filed by a stockholder of the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland (the “Leacock Litigation”) against the Company and certain of the Company’s current officers. In June 2022, a securities class action complaint captioned Fisher v. IonQ, Inc., Case No. 8:22-cv-01306-DLB (the “Fisher Litigation”) was filed by a stockholder against the Company and certain of the Company’s current officers (“IonQ Defendants”). Both the Leacock Litigation and Fisher Litigation, which have been consolidated into a single action, allege violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and seek damages. In September 2022, the Court appointed lead plaintiffs and counsel for lead plaintiffs, and ordered lead plaintiffs to file a consolidated amended complaint. The consolidated amended complaint was filed on November 22, 2022. As part of the consolidated amended complaint, certain members of the Company’s board of directors as well as other dMY-related defendants (“Additional Defendants”) have been added as defendants to the case. On February 7, 2023, the IonQ Defendants and the Additional Defendants each filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. On March 23, 2023, lead plaintiffs filed their omnibus opposition to the motions to dismiss. On April 26, 2023, the IonQ Defendants and the Additional Defendants each filed a reply in support of the motions to dismiss. On September 28, 2023, the District Court of Maryland issued an order dismissing plaintiffs' claims against the IonQ Defendants and the Additional Defendants with prejudice and directed the clerk to close the case. On October 26, 2023, the plaintiffs filed a motion for post-judgment relief, seeking to amend their consolidated amended complaint. The IonQ Defendants and Additional Defendants filed oppositions to plaintiffs’ motion on December 1, 2023, and plaintiffs filed their reply on January 8, 2024. Both the IonQ Defendants and Additional Defendants intend to defend the matters vigorously. Given the uncertainty of litigation, the preliminary stage of the case, and the legal standards that must be met for, among other things, class certification and success on the merits, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, that may result from the associated suit. Glatt Litigation On January 12, 2021, dMY Technology Group, Inc. II, dMY Sponsor II, LLC, dMY, and dMY Sponsor III, LLC (“Sponsor”) accepted service of a lawsuit where they were named as counterclaim defendants in an underlying action by and between GTY Technology Holdings, Inc. (“GTY”), dMY Technology Holdings Inc., dMY Sponsor, LLC, dMY Sponsor II, LLC, dMY Technology Group Inc. II, dMY and Sponsor (collectively “dMY Defendants”) and Carter Glatt (“Glatt”) and Captains Neck Holdings LLC (“Captains Neck”), an entity of which Mr. Glatt is a member. The underlying lawsuit, filed by dMY Technology Group, Inc. and dMY Sponsor, LLC, seeks a declaratory judgment that Glatt and Captains Neck are not entitled to membership units of dMY Sponsor LLC, which was formed by Harry L. You, the co-founder and former President and Chief Financial Officer of GTY when Glatt was still working at GTY. The underlying lawsuit contains claims arising from Glatt’s termination of employment from GTY, including theft and misappropriation of confidential GTY information, breach of contract, breach of the duties of loyalty and fiduciary duty and conversion. Glatt responded to the underlying lawsuit by adding members of the Sponsor and officers of dMY as additional counterclaim defendants (collectively with the dMY Defendants Glatt and Captains Neck, the “Counterclaim Defendants”) and adding Dune Acquisition Holdings LLC, a newly formed special purpose acquisition company, as a counterclaimant and asserting claims for breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, tortious interference with business relations, quantum meruit and unjust enrichment. dMY and the Company have never employed Glatt nor maintained any business agreements with him. The Counterclaim Defendants denied the claims against them and filed a motion to dismiss the suit. During 2023, the court dismissed the claims against dMY Technology Group, Inc. III (“dMY III”), the former legal registrant of IonQ, Inc and the case is now considered closed.

Commitments and Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2023

10. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Warranties and Indemnification

The Company’s commercial services are typically warranted to perform in a manner consistent with general industry standards that are reasonably applicable and materially in accordance with the Company’s documentation under normal use and circumstances.

The Company’s arrangements generally include certain provisions for indemnifying customers against liabilities if its products or services infringe third- party intellectual property rights. To date, the Company has not incurred any material costs as a result of such obligations and has not accrued any liabilities related to such obligations in the accompanying consolidated financial statements.

Stockholder Lawsuit

In May 2022, a securities class action complaint captioned Leacock v. IonQ, Inc. et al., Case No. 8:22-cv-01306, was filed by a stockholder of the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland (the “Leacock Litigation”) against the Company and certain of the Company’s current officers. In June 2022, a securities class action complaint captioned Fisher v. IonQ, Inc., Case No. 8:22-cv-01306-DLB (the “Fisher Litigation”) was filed by a stockholder against the Company and certain of the Company’s current officers (“IonQ Defendants”). Both the Leacock Litigation and Fisher Litigation, which have been consolidated into a single action, allege violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and seek damages. In September 2022, the Court appointed lead plaintiffs and counsel for lead plaintiffs, and ordered lead plaintiffs to file a consolidated amended complaint. The consolidated amended complaint was filed on November 22, 2022. As part of the consolidated amended complaint, certain members of the Company’s board of directors as well as other dMY-related defendants (“Additional Defendants”) have been added as defendants to the case. On February 7, 2023, the IonQ Defendants and the Additional Defendants each filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. On March 23, 2023, lead plaintiffs filed their omnibus opposition to the motions to dismiss. On April 26, 2023, the IonQ Defendants and the Additional Defendants each filed a reply in support of the motions to dismiss. On September 28, 2023, the District Court of Maryland issued an order dismissing plaintiffs' claims against the IonQ Defendants and the Additional Defendants with prejudice and directed the clerk to close the case. On October 26, 2023, the plaintiffs filed a motion for post-judgment relief, seeking to amend their consolidated amended complaint. The IonQ Defendants and Additional Defendants filed oppositions to plaintiffs’ motion on December 1, 2023, and plaintiffs filed their reply on January 8, 2024. Both the IonQ Defendants and Additional Defendants intend to defend the matters vigorously. Given the uncertainty of litigation, the preliminary stage of the case, and the legal standards that must be met for, among other things, class certification and success on the merits, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, that may result from the associated suit.

Glatt Litigation

On January 12, 2021, dMY Technology Group, Inc. II, dMY Sponsor II, LLC, dMY, and dMY Sponsor III, LLC (“Sponsor”) accepted service of a lawsuit where they were named as counterclaim defendants in an underlying action by and between GTY Technology Holdings, Inc. (“GTY”), dMY Technology Holdings Inc., dMY Sponsor, LLC, dMY Sponsor II, LLC, dMY Technology Group Inc. II, dMY and Sponsor (collectively “dMY Defendants”) and Carter Glatt (“Glatt”) and Captains Neck Holdings LLC (“Captains Neck”), an entity of which Mr. Glatt is a member. The underlying lawsuit, filed by dMY Technology Group, Inc. and dMY Sponsor, LLC, seeks a declaratory judgment that Glatt and Captains Neck are not entitled to membership units of dMY Sponsor LLC, which was formed by Harry L. You, the co-founder and former President and Chief Financial Officer of GTY when Glatt was still working at GTY. The underlying lawsuit contains claims arising from Glatt’s termination of employment from GTY, including theft and misappropriation of confidential GTY information, breach of contract, breach of the duties of loyalty and fiduciary duty and conversion. Glatt responded to the underlying lawsuit by adding members of the Sponsor and officers of dMY as additional counterclaim defendants (collectively with the dMY Defendants Glatt and Captains Neck, the “Counterclaim Defendants”) and adding Dune Acquisition Holdings LLC, a newly formed special purpose acquisition company, as a counterclaimant and asserting claims for breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, tortious interference with business relations, quantum meruit and unjust enrichment. dMY and the Company have never employed Glatt nor maintained any business agreements with him.

The Counterclaim Defendants denied the claims against them and filed a motion to dismiss the suit. During 2023, the court dismissed the claims against dMY Technology Group, Inc. III (“dMY III”), the former legal registrant of IonQ, Inc and the case is now considered closed.