Item 3. Legal Proceedings

From time to time, we are subject to various legal proceedings, litigation and claims, either asserted or unasserted, that arise in the ordinary course of business. Although the outcome of the various legal proceedings, litigation and claims cannot be predicted with certainty, management does not believe that any of these proceedings or other claims will have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. Regardless of the outcome, litigation can have an adverse impact on us because of defense and settlement costs, diversion of management resources and other factors.

On May 27, 2022, a stockholder filed a derivative lawsuit captioned Huizenga v. Green, No. 2022-0461, asserting claims on our behalf against certain members of our board of directors in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. On June 27, 2022, a second derivative lawsuit captioned Pfeiffer v. Green, No. 2022-0560, was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware alleging substantially similar claims. Those lawsuits were consolidated on August 18, 2022, and a lead plaintiff was appointed on October 7, 2022. The two complaints alleged generally that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to us and our stockholders in connection with the negotiation and approval of a market-based performance award to our Chief Executive Officer (the “CEO Performance Option”). The plaintiffs sought a court order rescinding the CEO Performance Option and monetary damages. On November 10, 2022, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint, and on January 12, 2023, the defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint. On February 14, 2025, the court granted the motions to dismiss under Court of Chancery Rule 23.1 in their entirety with prejudice, finding that the plaintiffs did not allege facts sufficient to infer that at least half of our board of directors received a material benefit from the CEO Performance Option, lacked independence from Mr. Green, or faced a “substantial likelihood of liability” from having approved the CEO Performance Option. The order is subject to appeal.

On October 4, 2024, a stockholder filed a class action complaint in the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware alleging claims for breach of contract against us and breach of fiduciary duties against our directors, in connection with our reincorporation from Delaware to Nevada. Gunderson v. The Trade Desk, Inc., No. 2024-1029 (Del. Ch.). On October 24, 2024, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The complaint sought, among other things, an order declaring that our conversion required approval by a supermajority of our stockholders and an order enjoining the November 14, 2024 stockholder vote on the proposed conversion. On October 28, 2024, the parties completed expedited briefing on cross motions for partial summary judgment regarding the causes of action asserted in the original complaint, and the court heard oral argument on the motions on October 30, 2024. On November 6, 2024, the court granted the defendants’ summary judgment motion and denied the plaintiff’s cross-motion, finding that the conversion did not require supermajority approval of our stockholders, and that the defendants did not breach their fiduciary duties by disclosing that the conversion required a vote of a simple majority of our stockholders. The plaintiff chose not to appeal. The case is now proceeding as to the plaintiff’s remaining claims that our directors breached their fiduciary duties because our reincorporation to Nevada was substantively and procedurally unfair, and that the transaction is not subject to the business judgment rule because it was not subject to approval by a special committee of the board or by a majority of the disinterested stockholders. The defendants have moved to dismiss, but no briefing schedule has been set.

On November 15, 2024, a different stockholder filed a complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware requesting production of our corporate books and records related to the Nevada conversion, pursuant to 8 Del. C. § 220. On November 27, 2024, the parties agreed to stay the proceeding in exchange for the production of certain documents to the plaintiff; the court granted the stay the same day. The proceedings remain stayed.

Litigation is inherently uncertain and there can be no assurance regarding the likelihood that the motions to dismiss or defense of the various actions will be successful.