Litigation

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2026

Litigation [Abstract]

Litigation

Litigation

Contingencies

As of March 31, 2026, the Firm and its subsidiaries and affiliates are defendants or respondents in numerous evolving legal proceedings, including private proceedings, public proceedings, government investigations, regulatory enforcement matters, and the matters described below. These range from individual actions involving a single plaintiff to class action lawsuits with potentially millions of class members. Investigations and regulatory enforcement matters involve both formal and informal proceedings, by both governmental agencies and self-regulatory organizations. These legal proceedings are at varying stages of adjudication, arbitration or investigation, and involve each of the Firm’s lines of business in several geographies and varied claims (including common law tort and contract claims and statutory antitrust, securities and consumer protection claims), some of which present novel legal theories.

The Firm estimates the aggregate range of reasonably possible losses, in excess of reserves established, for its legal proceedings is from $0 to approximately $1.3 billion at March 31, 2026. This estimated aggregate range of reasonably possible losses was based upon information available as of that date for those proceedings in which the Firm believes that an estimate of reasonably possible loss can be made. For certain matters, the Firm does not believe that such an estimate can be made, as of that date. The Firm’s estimate of the aggregate range of reasonably possible losses involves significant judgment, given:

•the number, variety and varying stages of the proceedings, including the fact that many are in preliminary stages,

•the existence in many such proceedings of multiple defendants, including the Firm, whose share of liability (if any) has yet to be determined,

•the numerous yet-unresolved issues in many of the proceedings, including issues regarding class certification and the scope of many of the claims, and

•the uncertainty of the various potential outcomes of such proceedings, including where the Firm has made assumptions concerning future rulings by the court or other adjudicator, or about the behavior or incentives of adverse parties or regulatory authorities, and those assumptions later prove to be incorrect.

In addition, the outcome of a particular proceeding may be a result that the Firm did not take into account in its estimate because the Firm had deemed the likelihood of that outcome to be remote. Accordingly, the Firm’s estimate of the aggregate range of

reasonably possible losses will change from time to time, and actual losses may vary significantly.

Set forth below are descriptions of the Firm’s material legal proceedings.

Amrapali. India’s Enforcement Directorate (“ED”) is investigating J.P. Morgan India Private Limited in connection with investments made in 2010 and 2012 by two offshore funds formerly managed by JPMorganChase entities into residential housing projects developed by the Amrapali Group (“Amrapali”) relating to delays in delivering or failure to deliver residential units. In July 2019, the Supreme Court of India issued an order making preliminary findings that Amrapali and other parties, including unspecified JPMorganChase entities, violated certain criminal currency control and money laundering provisions, and ordered the ED to conduct a further inquiry. The Firm is cooperating with the inquiry. In addition, in August 2021, the ED issued an order fining J.P. Morgan India Private Limited approximately $31.5 million, which the Firm is appealing.

Cash Sweep Related Matters. Putative class actions have been filed against the Firm relating to interest rates paid to non-managed brokerage clients in the Firm’s cash sweep program. The matters have been consolidated in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. In February 2026, the District Court issued a ruling granting, in part, and denying, in part, the Firm’s motion to dismiss, leaving express and implied breach of contract claims. In addition, certain state securities regulators have requested information related to the Firm’s cash sweep program.

Fair Access to Banking. In August 2025, the President of the United States issued an Executive Order entitled “Guaranteeing Fair Banking for All Americans” that addressed access to financial services and directed several actions by certain federal agencies, including a review and revision of their internal policies and manuals. JPMorganChase is responding to requests from government authorities and other external parties regarding, among other things, the Firm’s policies and processes and the provision of services to customers and potential customers. Certain of these matters are at various stages, including reviews, investigations, and legal proceedings. These include a civil lawsuit filed in January 2026 in Florida state court by President Donald J. Trump, in his personal capacity, and several affiliated corporate entities, against JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and its CEO, which defendants have removed to federal court and plaintiffs are challenging.

Foreign Exchange Investigations and Litigation. The Firm previously reported settlements with certain

government authorities relating to its foreign exchange (“FX”) sales and trading activities and controls related to those activities. Among those resolutions, in May 2015, the Firm pleaded guilty to a single violation of federal antitrust law. The Department of Labor ("DOL") granted the Firm exemptions that permit the Firm and its affiliates to continue to rely on the Qualified Professional Asset Manager exemption under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) through the ten-year disqualification period, which began in January 2017. The only remaining FX-related governmental inquiry is a South Africa Competition Commission matter which is currently pending before the South Africa Competition Tribunal.

With respect to civil litigation matters, some FX-related individual and putative class actions filed outside the U.S., including in the U.K., Israel, the Netherlands and Brazil remain. In December 2025, the U.K. Supreme Court confirmed the initial decision of the Competition Appeal Tribunal, which denied a request for class certification on an opt-out basis. In Israel, a settlement in principle has been reached on the putative class action, which remains subject to court approval.

Interchange Litigation. Groups of merchants and retail associations filed a series of class action complaints alleging that Visa and Mastercard, as well as certain banks, conspired to set the price of credit and debit card interchange fees and enacted related rules in violation of antitrust laws.

In September 2018, the parties settled the class action seeking monetary relief. A separate class action seeking injunctive relief continues. In June 2024, the District Court for the Eastern District of New York denied preliminary approval of a settlement of the injunctive class action in which Visa and Mastercard agreed to certain changes to their respective network rules and system-wide reductions in interchange rates for U.S.-based merchants. In November 2025, the parties to that settlement reached a superseding and amended class settlement and submitted the agreement to the District Court for its approval.

Of the merchants who opted out of the damages class settlement, certain merchants filed individual actions raising similar allegations against Visa and Mastercard, as well as against the Firm and other banks. The defendants have reached settlements with the merchants who opted out representing over 90% of the combined Mastercard-branded and Visa-branded payment card sales volume. The remaining opt out actions are pending. The parties resolved actions which were pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and were scheduled to begin trial in April 2026. Other actions are pending in the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Illinois and are scheduled for trial in September 2026.

LIBOR and Other Benchmark Rate Investigations and Litigation. JPMorganChase has responded to inquiries from various governmental agencies and entities around the world relating primarily to the British Bankers Association’s (“BBA”) London Interbank Offered Rate (“LIBOR”) for various currencies and the European Banking Federation’s Euro Interbank Offered Rate (“EURIBOR”). The Firm appealed a December 2016 decision by the European Commission against the Firm and other banks finding an infringement of European antitrust rules relating to EURIBOR. In December 2023, the European General Court annulled the fine imposed by the European Commission, but exercised its discretion to re-impose a fine in an identical amount. In March 2024, the Firm filed an appeal of this decision with the Court of Justice of the European Union, which held a hearing in January 2026 and reserved judgment.

In addition, the Firm was named as a defendant along with other banks in various individual and putative class actions related to benchmark rates, including U.S. dollar LIBOR. In September 2025, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on all remaining claims related to U.S. dollar LIBOR, decertified the class, and dismissed all claims in their entirety with prejudice to refiling. Plaintiffs have filed an appeal.

Russian Litigation. The Firm is obligated to comply with international sanctions laws, which mandate the blocking of certain assets. These laws apply when assets associated with individuals, companies, products or services are within the scope of the sanctions. The Firm has faced actual and threatened litigation in Russia seeking payments that the Firm cannot make under, and is contractually excused from paying as a result of, relevant sanctions laws. In claims involving the Firm and claims filed against other financial institutions, Russian courts have disregarded the parties’ contractual agreements concerning forum selection and did not recognize foreign sanctions laws as a basis for not making payment. Russian courts have entered judgment against the Firm in a number of claims. This includes one claim for $439 million, for which the courts have stayed the enforcement of the judgment against the Firm's unprotected assets in Russia pending the outcome of an appeal, and a judgment for another claim has been executed against assets held onshore by the Firm in Russia. The total amount of the judgments exceeds the total amount of available assets that the Firm holds in Russia. Russian courts have allowed plaintiffs to withhold dividends due to the Firm’s clients for the purpose of satisfying judgments, which the Firm is opposing as unlawful. The Firm continues to appeal the Russian courts'

decisions, but certain judgments are now enforceable against Firm assets in Russia. Russian courts have also ordered interim freezes of Firm assets in Russia (including, among other things, funds in bank accounts, securities, shares in authorized capital, and certain trademarks, of the named defendants) pending a determination of certain underlying claims against the Firm. The Firm has challenged claims being pursued in the Russian courts and related freeze orders in other jurisdictions provided for by the parties’ contractual forum selections. If further claims are enforced despite the actions taken by the Firm to challenge the claims and orders and to seek the proper application of law, the Firm’s assets in Russia could be seized in full, and certain client assets could also be seized, or the Firm could be prevented from complying with its obligations.

Shareholder Litigation. A shareholder derivative action purporting to act on behalf of the Firm was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York against the Firm, its Board of Directors and certain of its current and former officers relating to historical trading practices by former employees in the precious metals and U.S. treasuries markets and related conduct which were the subject of the Firm’s resolutions with the DOJ, CFTC and SEC in September 2020. In March 2026, the Court dismissed the case with prejudice.

* * *

In addition to the various legal proceedings discussed above, JPMorganChase and its subsidiaries are named as defendants or are otherwise involved in a substantial number of other legal proceedings. The Firm believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims asserted against it in its currently outstanding legal proceedings and it intends to defend itself vigorously. Additional legal proceedings may be initiated from time to time in the future.

The Firm has established reserves for several hundred of its currently outstanding legal proceedings. Under U.S. GAAP for contingencies, the Firm accrues for a litigation-related liability when it is probable that such a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. The Firm evaluates its outstanding legal proceedings each quarter to assess its litigation reserves, and makes adjustments in such reserves, upward or downward, as appropriate, based on management’s best judgment after consultation with counsel. The Firm’s legal expense was $223 million and $121 million for the three months ended March 31, 2026 and 2025, respectively. There is no assurance that the Firm’s litigation reserves will not need to be adjusted in the future.

In view of the inherent difficulty of predicting the outcome of legal proceedings, particularly where the claimants seek very large or indeterminate damages,

or where the matters present novel legal theories, involve a large number of parties or are in early stages of discovery, the Firm cannot state with confidence what will be the eventual outcomes of the currently pending matters, the timing of their ultimate resolution or the eventual losses, fines, penalties or consequences related to those matters. JPMorganChase believes, based upon its current knowledge and after consultation with counsel, consideration of the material legal proceedings described above and after taking into account its current litigation reserves and its estimated aggregate range of possible losses, that the other legal proceedings currently pending against it should not have a material adverse effect on the Firm’s consolidated financial condition. The Firm notes, however, that in light of the uncertainties involved in such proceedings, there is no assurance that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not significantly exceed the reserves it has currently accrued or that a matter will not have material reputational consequences. As a result, the outcome of a particular matter may be material to JPMorganChase’s operating results for a particular period, depending on, among other factors, the size of the loss or liability imposed and the level of JPMorganChase’s income for that period.