Item 3. Legal Proceedings

On June 30, 2015, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) issued a Civil Investigative Demand (“CID”) to the Company. The CID sought information and documents about the Company’s capacity from January 2010 to the date of the CID, including public statements and communications with third parties about capacity. In June 2015, the Company also received a letter from the Connecticut Attorney General requesting information about capacity. The Company is cooperating fully with the DOJ CID and the state inquiry.

Further, on July 1, 2015, a complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of putative classes of consumers alleging collusion among the Company, American Airlines, Delta Air Lines, and United Airlines to limit capacity and maintain higher fares in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Since then, a number of similar class action complaints were filed in the United States District Courts for the Central District of California, the Northern District of California, the District of Columbia, the Middle District of Florida, the Southern District of Florida, the Northern District of Georgia, the Northern District of Illinois, the Southern District of Indiana, the Eastern District of Louisiana, the District of Minnesota, the District of New Jersey, the Eastern District of New York, the Southern District of New York, the Middle District of North Carolina, the District of Oklahoma, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the Northern District of Texas, the District of Vermont, and the Eastern District of Wisconsin. On October 13, 2015, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation centralized the cases to the United States District Court in the District of Columbia. On March 25, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint in the consolidated cases alleging that the defendants conspired to restrict capacity from 2009 to present. The plaintiffs seek to bring their claims on behalf of a class of persons who purchased tickets for domestic airline travel on the defendants' airlines from July 1, 2011 to present. They seek treble damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and expenses. On May 11, 2016, the defendants moved to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint, which the Court denied on October 28, 2016. On December 20, 2017, the Company reached an agreement to settle these cases with a proposed class of all persons who purchased domestic airline transportation services from July 1, 2011, to the date of the settlement. The Company agreed to pay $15 million and to provide certain cooperation with the plaintiffs as set forth in the settlement agreement. After notice was provided to the proposed settlement class and the Court held a fairness hearing, the Court issued an order granting final approval of the settlement on May 9, 2019. On June 10, 2019, certain objectors filed notices of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which the Court dismissed on July 9, 2021, for lack of jurisdiction because the district court's order approving the settlements was not a final appealable order. The case is continuing as to the remaining defendants. The Company denies all allegations of wrongdoing.

On January 7, 2019, a complaint alleging a violation of the federal Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (“USERRA”) and seeking a certification as a class action was filed against the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint alleges that the Company violates section 4316(b) of USERRA because it does not provide paid “short-term” military leave (i.e., a military leave of 14 days or fewer) but does provide paid jury duty leave, bereavement leave, and sick leave, which the plaintiff alleges are “comparable” forms of leave under USERRA and its implementing regulations. The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, damages, liquidated damages, interest, and attorneys’ fees, expert fees, and litigation costs. On February 3, 2021, the Court granted the plaintiff’s motion for class certification and issued an order certifying a class comprised of current or former Employees who, during their employment with the Company at any time from October 10, 2004, through the date of judgment in this action, have taken short-term military leave and were subject to a collective-bargaining agreement, except for Employees subject to the Transport Workers Union Local 550 agreement covering meteorologists. On January 11, 2022, the Court granted the parties’ stipulated request to vacate the trial date as the Department of Defense had not yet produced the class members’ military pay and service records pursuant to the Company’s third-party subpoena. On August 18, 2022, the Court entered an order that effectively stayed the action, except for attention to the third-party subpoena, until after the Ninth Circuit issued its opinion in the matter of Clarkson v. Alaska Airlines, Inc. and Horizon Industries, Inc., an appeal from an order by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington granting summary judgment in defendants’ favor on substantially the same claims at issue in this action. The Ninth Circuit issued its order in Clarkson on February 1, 2023, reversing the district court’s grant of summary judgment and remanding the Clarkson case to the District Court with instructions to consider the “pay during leave” issue in the first instance. The Company has received the military pay and service records. On October 29, 2024, the Company filed a motion to decertify the class, which was then fully briefed and set for hearing. On February 13, 2025, the parties filed a notice of settlement advising the Court that they reached a settlement in principle, and the parties made a stipulated request for the Court to vacate the case schedule, including the hearing on the Company's decertification motion, and to set a deadline of June 19, 2025, for the filing of either a motion for preliminary approval of the class settlement or a status update about the timing of the remaining steps in the settlement process. The Court granted the stipulation on February 14, 2025. On June 20, 2025, the Court granted the parties’ stipulated request to continue the deadline for filing a motion for preliminary approval of the class settlement and the Court reset the deadline for

August 21, 2025. On September 25, 2025, plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement class. The class proposed in the settlement modifies the class definition to use an end date of January 1, 2026 (rather than treating the date of judgment as the end date). The settlement includes an $18.5 million settlement fund and prospective relief that includes a differential pay benefit for up to ten days of military leave per year, which will remain in place for at least five years once initiated. On December 11, 2025, the Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement and set the final approval hearing for May 14, 2026.

On December 27, 2019, a former customer service agent at Oakland International Airport, filed a putative class action complaint in the Superior Court of California, for the County of Santa Clara, against the Company alleging the following seven claims under the California Labor Code and Business & Professions Code: (1) failure to provide meal periods; (2) failure to provide rest periods; (3) failure to pay hourly wages; (4) failure to provide accurate wage statements; (5) failure to timely pay all final wages; (6) unfair competition; and (7) civil penalties for the foregoing. Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on October 15, 2021, that asserted the same causes of action and added a named plaintiff. The First Amended Complaint primarily seeks unpaid wages, interest thereon, and associated civil and statutory penalties, along with attorneys’ fees and costs. On February 26, 2025, the Court granted class certification as to the first cause of action for failure to provide meal periods, denied certification on the second through fourth causes of action, and granted certification on the fifth and sixth causes of action only insofar as they are predicated on the first cause of action. The certified class consists of all of the Company’s non-exempt ground employees in California who worked a shift in excess of five hours for the time period between October 24, 2014, forward. On April 17, 2025, the Company filed a summary judgment motion arguing that Plaintiffs’ first cause of action, and all causes of action predicated thereon, failed as a matter of law. The motion was granted on July 25, 2025. Judgment was entered in favor of the Company on September 2, 2025, and Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on September 4, 2025. The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend itself in all respects.

On June 22, 2020, a derivative action for breach of fiduciary duty was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas naming the members of the Company's Board of Directors (the “Board”) as defendants and the Company as a nominal defendant (the “Derivative Action”). The plaintiff alleges unspecified damage to Company’s reputation, goodwill, and standing in the community, as well as damage from exposure to civil and regulatory liability and defense costs. According to the lawsuit, these damages arise from the Company’s alleged failure to comply with safety and record maintenance regulations and false statements in public filings regarding the Company’s safety practices. The plaintiff alleges the Board, in the absence of good faith, exhibited reckless disregard for its duties of oversight. On October 7, 2020, the Court entered an order staying and administratively closing the Derivative Action, pending the District Court's final resolution of the Company's motion to dismiss in a parallel securities class action under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act that was filed on February 19, 2020, or upon the occurrence of certain other conditions. While the parallel securities class action was dismissed with prejudice on October 5, 2023, the plaintiff in the Derivative Action has taken no steps to lift the stay in the case, which remains stayed. The Board and Company deny all allegations of wrongdoing made in the Derivative Action.

On August 26, 2021, a complaint alleging breach of contract and seeking certification as a class action was filed against the Company in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas in Waco. The complaint alleges that the Company breached its Contract of Carriage and other alleged agreements in connection with its use of the allegedly defective MAX aircraft manufactured by The Boeing Company. The complaint seeks damages on behalf of putative classes of customers who provided valuable consideration, whether in money or other form (e.g., voucher, miles/points, etc.), in exchange for a ticket for air transportation with the Company, which transportation took place between August 29, 2017, and March 13, 2019. The complaint generally seeks money damages, declaratory relief, and attorneys’ fees and other costs. On October 27, 2021, the Company filed a multi-faceted motion challenging the complaint based upon lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the existence of a prior-filed complaint on appeal in the Fifth Circuit (the “Sherman Complaint”), improper venue, and failure to state a claim, and seeking to have the complaint's class contentions stricken. That motion was fully briefed by both parties and was argued to a United States Magistrate Judge on June 27, 2022. On July 5, 2022, the Magistrate Judge granted the motion in part and ordered the case stayed until the issuance of the Fifth Circuit's opinion in the Sherman Complaint. On November 28, 2022, the parties jointly notified the Court of the Fifth Circuit's decision regarding the Sherman Complaint. On March 23, 2023, the parties jointly notified the Court of the dismissal of the Sherman Complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Following more recent communications by the parties regarding the status of the stay, the Court directed the parties to file a joint status report, which was filed on February 24, 2025, with the

Company renewing its request that the case be dismissed for lack of standing and lack of subject matter jurisdiction in light of the Fifth Circuit’s decision regarding the Sherman Complaint, which the plaintiffs opposed. On March 11, 2025, the Court heard argument of the parties’ respective positions on the Company’s request for dismissal for lack of standing and lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On June 9, 2025, the Court issued an order dismissing the case for lack of standing and lack of subject matter jurisdiction and entered final judgment in favor of the Company. On July 9, 2025, the plaintiffs in the case filed a notice of appeal to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The appeal has now been fully briefed by the parties. No oral argument has been set. The Company continues to deny all allegations of wrongdoing, believes the plaintiffs' positions are without merit, and intends to vigorously defend itself against the appeal.

Two complaints alleging violations of federal securities laws and seeking certification as a class action were filed (on January 10, 2023, and March 13, 2023, respectively) against the Company and certain of its officers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas in Houston. The complaints seek damages on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between June 13, 2020, and December 31, 2022. The complaints assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20 of the Exchange Act and allege that the Company made material misstatements to investors regarding the Company's internal technology and alleged vulnerability to large-scale flight disruptions. The complaints generally seek money damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and other costs. The deadline in the first of these two cases to file a motion seeking appointment of lead plaintiff was March 13, 2023; four separate motions were filed, and three of the parties seeking appointment contested the issue. On July 17, 2023, the Court signed an order consolidating the two federal securities cases into the first-filed suit and also appointed plaintiff Michael Berry as lead plaintiff in the consolidated case, with his counsel of record to serve as lead counsel and liaison counsel. On September 15, 2023, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint that expanded the class period to include persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between February 4, 2020, and March 14, 2023, while continuing to assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20 of the Exchange Act based on alleged misstatements regarding the Company's internal technology and alleged vulnerability to large-scale flight disruptions. On November 20, 2023, the Company and the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim. Plaintiffs filed an opposition brief on January 26, 2024. The Company and the individual defendants filed a reply brief on February 23, 2024. On December 5, 2024, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas denied the motion to dismiss on the basis that "the issues are better suited for a summary judgment motion after the parties have had the opportunity to engage in discovery." On December 21, 2024, the Company moved for reconsideration of the December 5, 2024, order and, in the alternative, for permission to pursue an interlocutory appeal. The plaintiffs opposed both requests for relief. On April 3, 2025, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas conducted a hearing on the Company’s motion for reconsideration and requested the parties to confer and submit an agreed post-hearing briefing schedule in order for the Court to evaluate and determine the sufficiency of the allegations in Plaintiffs’ amended complaint in accordance with the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. The parties' respective briefing on these issues has been completed and the matter remains pending for a decision by the Court. The Company denies all allegations of wrongdoing in the complaint, believes the plaintiffs' positions are without merit, and intends to vigorously defend itself in all respects.

Starting on or about January 24, 2023, the Company’s senior officers and the Board received multiple derivative demand letters from legal counsel for purported Southwest Shareholders demanding that the Board investigate claims, initiate legal action, and take remedial measures in connection with the service disruptions occurring in December 2022. Generally, the demand letters broadly assert that the Company’s directors and senior officers did not make sufficient investments in internal technology systems to prevent large-scale flight disruptions, did not exercise sufficient oversight over the Company’s operations, approved or received unwarranted compensation, caused the Company to make materially misleading public statements, and breached their fiduciary duties to the Company. Additionally, since January 27, 2023, the Company has received multiple letters from counsel for purported Southwest Shareholders making statutory demands for the production of various books and records of the Company, purportedly in an effort to investigate possible derivative claims similar to those made the subject of the derivative demands discussed above. On June 13, 2023, a shareholder derivative suit was filed against certain of the Company’s current and former officers and directors in the 14th Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas, asserting claims for damages from alleged breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, and unjust enrichment derivatively on the Company’s behalf against the individual defendants based on similar factual allegations as contained in the demand letters and in the federal class action complaints. On June 15, 2023, a second shareholder derivative suit was filed against certain of the Company’s current and former officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, asserting claims under Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act

and for damages from alleged breach of fiduciary duty, indemnification, and unjust enrichment derivatively on the Company’s behalf against the individual defendants based on similar factual allegations as contained in the demand letters and in the federal class action complaints. On November 14, 2023, a third shareholder derivative suit was filed in the 134th Judicial District of Dallas County, Texas, by some of the same counsel involved in the June 13, 2023, suit against the same defendants in that suit and making allegations of the same operative facts and claims. On June 18, 2024, a fourth shareholder derivative suit was filed in the 101st Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas, asserting substantially similar claims as in the first two state court derivative suits. On June 26, 2024, a fifth shareholder derivative suit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, asserting substantially similar claims as in the first federal derivative suit. On July 18, 2024, a sixth shareholder derivative suit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, asserting substantially similar claims as in the first federal derivative suit (together with the previous demand letters and shareholder derivative suits, the “Derivative Actions and Demands”).

The Company and the Board have addressed the Derivative Actions and Demands in accordance with the applicable Texas statutes governing such demands and litigation. Pursuant to those statutes, a committee of independent and disinterested directors (the "Special Litigation Committee") was appointed to conduct an inquiry regarding the allegations in the Derivative Actions and Demands. The state court cases have been consolidated into one state court case, and the federal cases were later consolidated into one federal case.

As described above, pursuant to the applicable Texas statutes governing derivative demands and litigation, the Special Litigation Committee was duly appointed to conduct an inquiry regarding the claims and allegations asserted in the Derivative Actions and Demands. The Derivative Actions and Demands were all stayed, formally or by agreement, pending the outcome of the investigation by the Special Litigation Committee. On September 19, 2024, the Special Litigation Committee formally reported its findings and resolution concerning its investigation of the Derivative Actions and Demands, which began in July 2023 and concluded with the September 19, 2024 report and resolution, which in turn were delivered to the Company and its Board on September 23, 2024. The Special Litigation Committee retained two law firms to represent the Special Litigation Committee in connection with the Special Litigation Committee’s investigation of the Derivative Actions and Demands and the Special Litigation Committee’s review and assessment of evidence gathered in its investigation. The Special Litigation Committee further reported, among other details, upon its appointment, the independence and disinterestedness of its members, the Special Litigation Committee’s investigative processes, including meetings, scope of investigation, volume of documents reviewed, numbers of witnesses interviewed, other presentations received, review and analysis of evidence and applicable legal standards, work with its counsel, and findings and preparation of the final report and resolution of the Special Litigation Committee. Based upon the Special Litigation Committee report and the conclusions reached therein, the Special Litigation Committee, consistent with its appointment and delegated authority, unanimously adopted a resolution (i) determining that it is not in the best interests of the Company or its Shareholders to pursue the relief requested in the Derivative Actions and Demands; (ii) determining that it is in the best interests of the Company and its Shareholders to reject the Derivative Actions and Demands; (iii) determining that it is in the best interests of the Company and its Shareholders for the Company to move to dismiss the Derivative Actions and Demands; and (iv) instructing that the Company and counsel take all further actions necessary to implement the resolution. On December 26, 2024, the Board received a seventh demand letter, and on January 31, 2025, received an eighth demand letter, each containing allegations substantially similar to those presented in certain of the prior Derivative Actions and Demands, which are being addressed consistent with applicable Texas law governing such demands. On April 1, 2025, the Company filed a motion to dismiss or stay the consolidated state court derivative actions based on the forum selection clause in the Company’s bylaws and the pendency of the related federal derivative cases. In May 2025, the Company and the plaintiffs in the state court derivative actions filed a joint stipulation and proposed order to stay the state court derivative actions and, among other things, to make a ruling on a motion to dismiss in the federal derivative case binding upon the state court derivative actions. On June 18, 2025, the Company filed a motion to lift the stay in the consolidated federal derivative actions and an accompanying motion to dismiss based on the Special Litigation Committee's report, conclusions, and resolution. The parties have submitted to the Court a stipulation with a proposed schedule pertaining to further briefing and related proceedings in connection with the motion to dismiss. The stipulation has not yet been signed by the Court.

Based on the Company's wide-scale operational disruption, which led to the cancelation of a significant number of flights between December 21 and December 29, 2022, the Company has been subject to inquiries and investigations by governmental agencies (including with respect to a December 2023 settlement with the DOT) and could be

subject to fines and/or penalties resulting from those inquiries and investigations, as well as litigation from Customers and Shareholders.

On January 28, 2025, two participants in the Company’s retirement plans commenced a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas against the Company, the Board, and certain of the Company’s officers. Plaintiffs purport to represent a class consisting of participants and beneficiaries in the Southwest Airlines Co. Retirement Savings Plan, the Southwest Airlines Co. 401(k) Plan, and the Southwest Airlines Co. ProfitSharing Plan (collectively, the “Plan”) who invested in the Harbor Capital Appreciation Fund from January 28, 2019 “through the date of judgment.” The complaint asserts that defendants mismanaged Plan assets and failed to monitor the Plan in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by, among other things, failing to remove the Harbor Fund as an investment option. The complaint seeks various forms of declaratory and monetary relief as well as attorneys’ fees, interest and other costs. The defendants deny all allegations of wrongdoing, believe the plaintiffs’ claims are without merit, and intend to vigorously defend against these claims.

On April 29, 2025, the Company received a demand letter addressed to the Board, dated April 28, 2025, from a purported Southwest Shareholder contending that the Company’s directors and senior officers breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the Board’s decision to end Southwest’s Bags Fly Free policy and to begin charging passengers for bags. The letter demanded that the Board investigate the circumstances surrounding the policy change and bring suit against individual directors and officers who allegedly breached their duties to the Company. On June 27, 2025, the Company sent a response to the demand letter on behalf of the Board rejecting the allegations and denying them and any other form of wrongdoing. The response letter also noted that the Board approved an amendment and restatement of the Company’s bylaws that, among other things, established a minimum ownership threshold of three percent of Southwest’s outstanding shares in order for a Southwest shareholder to institute or maintain a derivative proceeding, consistent with the provisions in Texas Senate Bill 29, which was signed into law on May 14, 2025. The response letter further noted that the purported shareholder who sent the demand letter claims to hold only 100 shares of the Company’s stock and thus fell well short of the three percent threshold. On July 10, 2025, the shareholder who sent the demand filed a shareholder derivative complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas against various directors and officers of the Company based on the contentions asserted in the demand letter. The suit asserts, among other things, that the decision to change Southwest’s Bags Fly Free policy conflicts with the Company’s prior views regarding the policy and is detrimental to the Company’s business, and that the Company’s directors approved the policy to accede to pressure from large shareholder Elliott Investment Management L.P., to preserve their Board seats, or both, rather than to serve the Company’s interests. The complaint also asserts that the amendment and restatement of the Company’s bylaws is ineffective. On August 25, 2025, the Company and its Board moved to dismiss the derivative complaint and all claims on the grounds, among others, that the suit is barred by Texas Senate Bill 29 and the Company's bylaw passed pursuant thereto requiring a three percent ownership threshold in order for Company shareholders to bring derivative claims. The plaintiff opposed the motion, claiming the purportedly retroactive application of Texas Senate Bill 29 and the Company bylaw are unconstitutional; and the Company filed a reply in support of its motion to dismiss. Additionally, multiple entities sought and were granted leave to file three separate amicus curiae briefs in support of the Company's motion to dismiss and Texas Senate Bill 29; those included one amicus brief each by: (i) the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America and the Texas Association of Business, (ii) the Alliance for Corporate Excellence, and (iii) Texans for Lawsuit Reform. Finally, in light of the constitutional challenge to Texas Senate Bill 29, on October 3, 2025, the State of Texas, represented by the Office of the Attorney General of Texas, filed a motion to intervene in the case and its own accompanying motion to dismiss the plaintiff's derivative suit and all claims therein as barred by Texas Senate Bill 29. The State of Texas’s motion to intervene was granted, and its motion to dismiss has been fully briefed by both the State and the plaintiff. The motions to dismiss of both the Company and the State of Texas remain pending and awaiting decision by the Court. The Company and its Board deny all allegations of wrongdoing, believe the plaintiffs' positions are without merit, and intend to vigorously defend themselves in all respects.

The Company is from time to time subject to various legal proceedings and claims arising in the ordinary course of business, including, but not limited to, examinations by the Internal Revenue Service and state and local income tax authorities.

The Company’s management does not expect that the outcome in any of its currently ongoing legal proceedings or the outcome of any proposed adjustments presented to date by the Internal Revenue Service and state and local

income tax authorities, individually or collectively, will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations, or cash flow. Nevertheless, an adverse outcome for any of these matters could be material.