22 paragraphs in Risk Factors of the 10-K filed Feb 26, 2026
with nothing like them in the 10-K filed Feb 20, 2025. Quoted exactly.
Paragraphs that were only edited are under 10-K change.
Compared with the Risk Factors in the latest 10-K of the other 29 Real estate companies:
a paragraph with at least half its words the same at another company is called similar, and the companies are listed under it.
A paragraph most of them have is marked boilerplate. No line means no other company has one like it.
This counts text; it does not say how serious a risk is.
If third-party suppliers upon which Matterport relies are not able to fulfill its needs, Matterport’s ability to timely and cost effectively bring its hardware products to market could be affected. Matterport relies on a limited number of suppliers to supply its hardware components for its cameras and other hardware products, including in some cases only a single supplier for some products and components. This reliance on a limited number of manufacturers increases its risks, since Matterport does not currently have proven reliable alternative or replacement manufacturers beyond these key parties. In the event of interruption, we may not be able to increase capacity from other sources or develop alternate or secondary sources, and if such sources become available, they may result in material additional costs and substantial delays.
Unexpected changes in business conditions, materials pricing, labor issues, wars, trade policies, natural disasters, health epidemics, trade and shipping disruptions, port congestions, and other factors beyond our or our suppliers’ control could also affect these suppliers’ ability to deliver components to us or to remain solvent and operational. Such disruptions could adversely affect our business if we are not able to meet customer demands. In addition, some of our suppliers are located in China. Our access to suppliers in China may be limited or impaired as a result of tariffs, including those that have been recently introduced by the current U.S. administration, or other government restrictions in response to geopolitical factors. There is no guarantee we may be able to continually use alternative suppliers and alternative parts as we scale production to meet our growth targets. Additionally, if our suppliers do not accurately forecast and effectively allocate production or if they are not willing to allocate sufficient production to us, it may reduce our access to components and require us to search for new suppliers. The unavailability of any component or supplier could result in production delays, idle manufacturing facilities, product design changes, and loss of access to important technology and tools for producing and supporting our products, as well as impact our capacity expansion and our ability to fulfill our obligations under customer contracts. Moreover, new product launches or product design changes by us have required, and may in the future require, us to procure additional components in a short amount of time. Our suppliers may not be willing or able to sustainably meet our timelines or our cost, quality, and volume needs, or to do so may cost us more, which may require us to replace them with other sources.
If we face supply constraints for any of the reasons described above, it may not be possible to obtain or increase supplies on acceptable terms, which may undermine our ability to satisfy customer demands in a timely manner. For example, it may take a significant amount of time to identify a manufacturer that has the capability and resources to build and supply necessary hardware components in sufficient volume. Identifying suitable suppliers can be an extensive process that requires us to become satisfied with our suppliers’ quality control, technical capabilities, responsiveness and service, financial stability, regulatory compliance, and labor and other ethical practices. Accordingly, a loss of any significant suppliers or manufacturers would have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and operating results.
Read in the 10-K ↗
Show the other 6
regarding the environmental and/or social impacts, risks, and opportunities of our business. Failure to disclose accurate information in a timely manner may also adversely affect our reputation, business, or financial performance.
Read in the 10-K ↗
Additionally, the scope of intellectual property protection in the field of AI and machine learning is currently under development, and there is uncertainty and ongoing litigation in different jurisdictions as to the degree and extent of protection warranted for AI and machine learning systems and their relevant system outputs. For example, the law is uncertain across jurisdictions regarding the copyright ownership of content that is produced in whole or in part by generative AI tools. If we fail to obtain protection for the intellectual property rights concerning our AI Technologies or their outputs that we seek to claim as proprietary, or later have our intellectual property rights invalidated or otherwise diminished, which could adversely affect our business, reputation and financial condition.
Further, the use of AI Technologies, whether by us or by third parties, may increase the risk that our data, intellectual property or confidential information will be inadvertently disclosed, which may result in reputational harm, competitive harm, or legal liability and adversely affect our business, results of operations, or financial condition.
Read in the 10-K ↗
In addition, in the EU, the DSA governs, among other things, our potential liability for illegal services/products or content on our platforms, obligations around traceability of business users, and requires enhanced transparency measures, including in relation to any recommendation systems (including the main parameters used by such systems and any available options for recipients to modify or influence them). Further, the DSA contains general requirements that user interfaces may not deceive or manipulate users which are yet to be clarified further by guidance. Similarly, in the United Kingdom, the OSA establishes an extensive regulatory framework for certain user-to-user and search services and imposes obligations to protect users from illegal content. The DSA and the OSA may increase our compliance costs, require changes to our user interfaces, processes, operations, and business practices which may adversely affect our ability to attract, retain and provide our services to customers, and may otherwise adversely affect our business, operations and financial condition. Failure to comply with the DSA can result in fines of up to 6% of total annual worldwide turnover and recipients of services have the right to seek compensation from providers in respect of damage or loss suffered due to infringement by the provider to comply with the DSA, and failure to comply with the OSA can result in fines of up to 10% of total annual worldwide turnover or £18 million, whichever is higher.
Read in the 10-K ↗
Some of our products or services contain third-party open source software components, and failure to comply with the terms of the underlying open source software licenses could restrict our ability to deliver our products or services or subject us to litigation or other actions. Some of our products or services contain software components licensed to us by third-party authors under “open source” licenses, and we expect to continue to incorporate such open source software in our products in the future. Use and distribution of open source software may entail greater risks than use of third-party commercial software, as open source licensors generally do not provide support, warranties, indemnification, or other contractual protections regarding infringement claims or the quality of the code. In addition, the public availability of such software may make it easier for others to compromise these products and introduce malware into our supply chain.
Some open source components used in the development of our products and services contain licenses requiring that we make portions of our source code publicly available or grant other licenses to our intellectual property. We seek to ensure that our proprietary software is not combined with, and does not incorporate, open source software in ways that would require the release of the source code of our proprietary software to the public. However, if we combine our proprietary software with open source software in a certain manner, we could, under certain open source licenses, be required to release the source code of our proprietary software to the public. This would allow our competitors or new entrants to create similar offerings with lower development effort and time and ultimately could result in a loss of our competitive advantages. Alternatively, to avoid the public release of the affected portions of our source code, we could be required to expend substantial time and resources to re-engineer some or all of our software. For example, our Matterport platform incorporates software that is licensed under open source licenses, which could require release of proprietary code if such platform was released or distributed in any manner that would trigger such a requirement to third parties. Additionally, some open source projects have vulnerabilities and architectural instabilities and are provided without warranties or support services to actively provide us with patched versions when available, and which, if not properly addressed, could negatively affect the performance of the platform.
The terms of many open source licenses have not been interpreted by U.S. or foreign courts, and there is a risk that these licenses could be construed in a way that could impose unanticipated conditions or restrictions on our ability to provide or distribute our products or services. From time to time, there have been claims challenging the ownership of open source software against companies that incorporate open source software into their products or services, and the licensors of such open source software provide no warranties or indemnities with respect to such claims. As a result, we could be subject to lawsuits by parties claiming ownership of what we believe to be open source software. Moreover, we cannot assure you that our processes for monitoring and managing our use of open source software in our products and services will be effective. If we are held to have breached or failed to fully comply with all the terms and conditions of an open source software license, or if an author or other third party that distributes such open source software were to allege that we had not complied with the conditions of one or more of these licenses, we could be required to incur significant legal expenses defending against such allegations, subject to significant damages, enjoined from the sale of subscriptions to certain products or services, or other liability, or required to seek costly licenses from third parties to continue providing our products or services on terms that, if available at all, are not economically feasible, to re-engineer our products or services, to discontinue or delay the provision of our products or services if re-engineering could not be accomplished on a timely basis, or to make generally available, in source code form, our proprietary code, any of which would adversely affect our business, financial condition, and results of operations.
Read in the 10-K ↗
The regulatory framework for AI Technologies is rapidly evolving as many federal, state and foreign government bodies and agencies have introduced or are currently considering additional laws and regulations. Additionally, existing laws and regulations may be enjoined in judicial proceedings from being enforced or may be interpreted in ways that would affect the operation of our AI Technologies, or could be rescinded or amended as new administrations take differing approaches to evolving AI Technologies. As a result, implementation standards and enforcement practices are likely to remain uncertain for the foreseeable future, and we cannot yet completely determine the impact future laws, regulations, standards, or market perception of their requirements may have on our business and may not always be able to anticipate how to respond to these laws or regulations.
Already, certain existing legal regimes (e.g., relating to data privacy) regulate certain aspects of AI Technologies, and new laws regulating AI Technologies have either entered into force in the United States and the EU in 2025 or are expected to enter into force in 2026.
For example, in Europe, the EU AI Act entered into force and established a comprehensive, risk-based governance framework for AI in the EU market. The majority of the substantive requirements will apply from August 2, 2026. The EU AI Act applies to companies that develop, use and/or provide AI in the EU and, depending on the use case, includes requirements around transparency, conformity assessments and monitoring, risk assessments, human oversight, security, accuracy, general purpose AI and foundation models and fines for breach of up to 7% of worldwide annual turnover. Once fully applicable, the EU AI Act will have a material impact on the way AI is regulated in the EU, and together with developing guidance and/or
decisions in this area, may affect our use of AI Technologies and our ability to provide, improve, or commercialize our services, and could require additional compliance measures and changes to our operations and processes.
Read in the 10-K ↗
Separately, the EU Data Act came into effect on September 12, 2025, establishing new requirements for manufacturers of connected products and providers of related services to such products, and providers of data processing services (including cloud, SaaS) into the EU. The Data Act imposes data access, sharing, design and transparency requirements on manufacturers of connected products, providers of related services and data holders. It also requires providers to facilitate customers switching to other providers/ on-premise solutions and porting their data within certain timeframes, remove technical, contractual, and commercial obstacles to service switching (including switching charges), and include certain mandatory terms in customer contracts. Failure to comply with the Data Act can result in regulatory enforcement and fines, civil claims, and reputational damage. The Data Act, together with developing guidance in this area, may require changes to our products, customer contracts, operations, and business practices, increase our compliance costs, require adjustments to our revenue recognition practices, and adversely affect our financial condition, business, and operations.
Further, the EU’s NIS 2 and its EU Member State transpositions and implementing regulations impose security obligations, including on online marketplace providers. We may be required to implement additional security measures and/or operational changes and incur additional costs which could adversely affect our business, operations and financial condition.
It is possible that additional new laws and regulations will be adopted in the United States and in other non-U.S. jurisdictions, or that existing laws and regulations, including competition and antitrust laws, may be interpreted or enforced in ways that would limit our ability to use AI Technologies for our business, or require us to change the way we use AI Technologies in a manner that negatively affects the performance of our products, services, and business and the way in which we use AI Technologies. We may need to expend resources to adjust our products or services in certain jurisdictions if the laws, regulations, or decisions are not consistent across jurisdictions. Such an increase in operating expenses, as well as any actual or perceived failure to comply with such laws and regulations, could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.
Read in the 10-K ↗
