Item 4. Controls and Procedures

Evaluation of Disclosure Controls and Procedures

Our management, with the participation of our Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”) and Chief Financial Officer (“CFO”), evaluated the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and procedures as defined in Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) under the Exchange Act as of June 30, 2025. Our disclosure controls and procedures are designed to provide reasonable assurance that information we are required to disclose in the reports we file or submit under the Exchange Act is accumulated and communicated to our management, including our CEO and CFO, as appropriate to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosures, and is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in

the SEC’s rules and forms. Based on this evaluation, our CEO and CFO have concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were effective at the reasonable assurance level as of June 30, 2025.

Changes in Internal Control over Financial Reporting

There have been no significant changes in our internal control over financial reporting during the quarter ended June 30, 2025 that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting.

Inherent Limitations on Effectiveness of Controls

Management recognizes that a control system, no matter how well conceived and operated, can provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurance that the objectives of the control system are met. Further, the design of a control system must reflect the fact that there are resource constraints, and the benefits of controls must be considered relative to their costs. Because of the inherent limitations in all control systems, no evaluation of controls can provide absolute assurance that all control issues and instances of fraud or error, if any, have been detected. These inherent limitations include the realities that judgments in decision making can be faulty, and that breakdowns can occur because of a simple error or mistake. Additionally, controls can be circumvented by the individual acts of some persons, by collusion of two or more people, or by management override of the controls. The design of any system of controls also is based in part upon certain assumptions about the likelihood of future events, and there can be no assurance that any design will succeed in achieving its stated goals under all potential future conditions; over time, controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or the degree of compliance with policies or procedures may deteriorate. Because of the inherent limitations in a cost-effective control system, misstatements due to error or fraud may occur and not be detected.

PART II. OTHER INFORMATION

Item 1. 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.

Litigation Related to 2021 CEO Performance Option

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 plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the court’s decision. On April 29, 2025, the plaintiffs filed their opening brief. On May 29, 2025, the defendants filed their answering brief. On June 13, 2025, the plaintiffs filed their reply brief. The appeal remains pending.

Litigation Related to Reincorporation

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.) (the “Gunderson Action”). 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 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 April 28, 2025, the plaintiff in the Scarantino Action (as defined below) moved to intervene and stay the Gunderson Action. On May 20, 2025, the Court granted the motion to intervene and stayed the Gunderson Action pending completion of the books and records inspection in the Scarantino Action.

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 relating to the Nevada conversion, pursuant to 8 Del. C. § 220. City of Roseville Employees Retirement System v. The Trade Desk, Inc., No. 2024-1173 (Del. Ch.). 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. On April 18, 2025, the stockholder voluntarily dismissed the complaint without prejudice.

On April 24, 2025, a different stockholder filed a complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware requesting production of the Company’s corporate books and records relating to the Nevada conversion and the Company’s dual class capital structure, among other things, pursuant to 8 Del. C. § 220. Richard Scarantino v. The Trade Desk, Inc., No 2025-0442 (Del. Ch.) (the “Scarantino Action”). A trial was held by the Court of Chancery on July 16, 2025. The parties are awaiting a decision.

Litigation Related to Securities Class Actions

On February 19, 2025, plaintiff United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers & Allied Workers Local Union No. 8 WBPA Fund filed a purported federal securities class action complaint in the United States District Court, Central District of California, captioned United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers, and Allied Workers Local Union No. 8 v. The Trade Desk, Inc. et al. (No. 2:25-cv-01396), against us as well as our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer. The complaint alleges that the defendants made false and misleading statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The action purports to be brought on behalf of those who purchased or otherwise acquired our publicly traded securities between May 9, 2024 and February 12, 2025 and seeks unspecified damages and other relief. On March 20, 2025, the court granted the parties’ joint stipulation, ordering that defendants need not respond to the current complaint, pending the appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel.

On March 5, 2025, two additional related purported class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court, Central District of California, captioned Savorelli v. The Trade Desk, Inc. et al. (No. 2:25-cv-01915), bringing claims against us as well as our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, and New England Teamsters Pension Fund v. The Trade Desk, Inc. et al. (No. 2:25-cv-01936), bringing claims against us as well as our Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Chief Strategy Officer. Both complaints allege that the defendants made false and misleading statements, similar to the allegations contained in the United Union of Roofers action, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The actions are also purportedly brought on behalf of those who purchased or otherwise acquired our publicly traded securities between May 9, 2024 and February 12, 2025 and seek unspecified damages and other relief. On March 18, 2025, the court entered orders relating the Savorelli and New England actions to the first-filed United Union of Roofers action, 2:25-cv-01396 (CAS). On March 28, 2025, the court granted the parties’ joint stipulations in the Savorelli and New England matters, ordering that defendants need not respond to the current complaints, pending the appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel.

Shareholder Derivative Actions

On March 6, 2025 and March 14, 2025, plaintiffs Nathan C. Silva and Daniel Jong, respectively, filed purported shareholder derivative complaints in the United States District Court, Central District of California, captioned Silva v. Green et al. (No. 2:25-cv-01975) and Jong v. Green et al. (No. 2:25-cv-02268), against current and former officers and directors of the Company, naming us as a nominal defendant. The complaints generally arise out of the same allegations contained in the securities class actions and allege claims for breach of fiduciary duties and related claims. The actions purport to be brought derivatively on our behalf and seek damages and other various forms of relief. On April 9, 2025, the court granted the parties’ stipulations consolidating the shareholder derivative actions and appointing Nathan C. Silva and Daniel Jong as Co-Plaintiffs and the Brown Law Firm, P.C. and Rigrodsky Law, P.A. as Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs. The April 9, 2025 order also provided that defendants need not respond to the current complaints, and that the parties provide a proposed scheduling order regarding the designation or filing of an operative consolidated complaint and defendants’ responses thereto by June 9, 2025.

On April 21, 2025, several purported shareholders filed motions in the related actions seeking to be appointed lead plaintiff and lead counsel. Once lead plaintiff and lead counsel are appointed, parties will confer to set a schedule for the filing of any amended complaint and any responsive briefing. The case is still in its early stages. Management believes these claims to be meritless and intends to vigorously defend against them.

Litigation Related to Our Platform and Related Offerings

On March 28, 2025, two complaints alleging various wiretapping and privacy tort theories were filed against us in the United States District Court, Northern District of California, captioned Michie & Dryer v. The Trade Desk, Inc., No. 3:25-cv-2889 (N.D. Cal.) and Hernandez-Mendoza v. The Trade Desk, Inc., No. 4:25-cv-02923 (N.D. Cal.). A third complaint advancing similar allegations, captioned Turner v. The Trade Desk, Inc., No. 3:25-cv-03136 (N.D. Cal.), was originally filed on March 31, 2025 in the United States District Court, Central District of California, but was voluntarily dismissed and refiled on April 7, 2025 in the United States District Court, Northern District of California. The complaints have now been consolidated into a single consolidated amended complaint, filed July 18, 2025, and the case is still in its early stages. Management believes the claims asserted in these complaints to be meritless and intends to vigorously defend against them.

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.