Item 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

We are subject to various claims, complaints and legal actions that arise from time to time in the normal course of business, including commercial insurance, product liability, intellectual property and employment related matters. In addition, from time to time we may bring claims or initiate lawsuits against various third parties with respect to matters arising out of the ordinary course of our business, including commercial and employment related matters.

Securities Class Actions

Between August 21 and October 9, 2024, three substantially similar putative class action complaints were filed against us and certain of our executive officers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. On December 13, 2024, the court appointed lead plaintiff and consolidated the three actions (now captioned In re Dexcom, Inc. Class Action Securities Litigation, Lead Case No.: 24-cv-1485-RSH-VET). On January 27, 2025, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint. The consolidated complaint alleges violations of the Exchange Act against us and certain of our current and former executive officers for allegedly making false and misleading statements between April 28, 2023 and July 25, 2024, with respect to our expected revenue for fiscal 2024 and ability to capitalize on our growth potential. On March 13, 2025, we filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. On May 14, 2025, the court granted the motion to dismiss with leave to amend. On May 28, 2025, lead plaintiff filed an amended consolidated complaint. On June 11, 2025, we filed a motion to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint. On September 9, 2025, the court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss. On October 7, 2025, defendants answered the amended consolidated complaint. On October 10, 2025, defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the two surviving challenged statements. On January 7, 2026, the court granted defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings with leave to amend. On February 6, 2026, lead plaintiff filed a second amended consolidated complaint. Defendants’ deadline to respond to the second amended consolidated complaint is February 20, 2026.

On October 27, 2025, a putative class action complaint was filed against us and certain of our executive officers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (captioned Prime v. Dexcom, Inc., et al, Case No.: 1:25-cv-08912). The complaint alleges violations of the Exchange Act against us and certain of our executive officers for allegedly making false and misleading statements between July 26, 2024 and September 17, 2025, with respect to the accuracy, reliability, and functionality of our G7 device, as well as our enhancements to and manufacturing of the device. A lead plaintiff has been appointed and must file an amended complaint no later than April 10, 2026. Our deadline to respond to the amended complaint is June 9, 2026.

Derivative Actions

Between September 13 and April 14, 2025, three putative stockholders filed derivative lawsuits against us and certain of our current and former executive officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. The derivative complaints allege factual allegations largely tracking allegations made in the In re Dexcom, Inc. Securities Class Action Litigation and seek, among other things, damages and restitution to be paid to the Company by the individual defendants, punitive damages, and attorney’s fees and costs. These actions have been consolidated (captioned In Re: Dexcom, Inc. Stockholder Derivative Litigation, Lead Case No.: 24-cv-1645-RSH-VET), and are currently stayed pending a resolution of the anticipated motion to dismiss in the In re Dexcom, Inc. Securities Class Action Litigation.

On September 25, 2025, an additional derivative lawsuit was filed against us and certain of our current and former executive officers and directors in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The allegations largely track those made in the In re Dexcom, Inc. Securities Class Action Litigation and seek, among other things, damages and restitution to be paid to the Company by the individual defendants, punitive damages, and attorney’s fees and costs. This action This action is currently stayed pending a resolution of the anticipated motion to dismiss in the In re Dexcom, Inc. Securities Class Action Litigation.

G6 and G7 Class Action Litigation

Between September 29, 2025, and January 8, 2026, various plaintiffs, purported users of G6 or G7 devices, filed six overlapping putative class action complaints against us. Four of the complaints originally were filed and are pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California (Levens, et al. v. Dexcom, Inc., No. 3:25-cv-02565-BJC-BLM; Estravit v. Dexcom, Inc., No. 3:25-cv-02845-BJC-BLM; and Dalora v. Dexcom, Inc., No. 3:25-cv-03210-BJC-BLM; Dickinson, et al. v. Dexcom, Inc. Dickinson, et al. v. Dexcom, Inc., No. 3:26-cv-00102-BJC-BLM); one of the complaints originally was filed in United States District Court for the Central District of California, and subsequently transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California (Grisoli, et al. v. Dexcom, Inc., No. 3:25-cv-03488-BJC-BLM); and one of the complaints was filed and is pending in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California (Chatelain v. Dexcom, Inc., No. 25STCV30722). Plaintiffs in all six actions allege they overpaid for G6 and/or G7 devices or components that were worth less than the purchase price because, among other reasons, G6 and/or G7 devices or components they purchased allegedly were adulterated or misbranded under federal law; G6 and/or G7 devices or components they purchased allegedly failed to perform as advertised; and because we allegedly misled patients and providers about the safety, accuracy, efficacy, and reliability of G6 and/or G7 devices or components. Plaintiffs in each action assert various state law consumer protection, express and implied warranty, common law, and Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claims, and seek, among other things, damages for economic losses, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees and costs. Plaintiffs seek to represent nationwide classes and state-specific subclasses of individuals.

The five cases in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California have been deemed related cases and have been assigned to a single judge. On December 30, 2025, and January 5, 2026, plaintiffs filed motions to consolidate the four federal court cases, to appoint interim class counsel, and to establish a briefing schedule on competing motions to appoint interim class counsel. The Court has stayed all deadlines to respond to the complaints in four of the federal court actions (Levens, Estravit, Dalora, and Grisoli) pending the filing of a consolidated complaint. Our deadline to respond to the complaint in Dickinson currently is March 23, 2026.

In the putative class action pending in Los Angeles County Superior Court, our initial status conference is scheduled for February 23, 2026. The case is stayed until at least the February 23, 2026, status conference.

We intend to vigorously defend against such claims; however, we cannot be certain of the outcome of our ongoing proceedings and, if determined adversely to us, our business and financial condition may be adversely affected.

We do not believe we are party to any other currently pending legal proceedings, the outcome of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, or results of operations. There can be no assurance that existing or future legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business or otherwise will not have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, or results of operations.