NVDANvidia

Given the increasing strategic importance of AI and rising geopolitical tensions, the USG has changed and may again change the export control rules at any time and further subject a wider range of our products to export restrictions and licensing requirements, negatively impacting our business and financial results. In the event of such change, we may be unable to sell our inventory of such products and may be unable to develop replacement products not subject to the licensing requirements, effectively excluding us from all or part of the China market, as well as other impacted markets, including the Middle East and countries designated “Tier 2” by the AI Diffusion IFR. For example, the USG has already imposed conditions to limit the ability of foreign firms to create and offer as a service large-scale GPU clusters, for example by imposing license conditions on the use of products to be exported to certain countries, and may impose additional conditions such as requiring chip tracking and throttling mechanisms that could disable or impair GPUs if certain events, including unauthorized system configuration, use, or location, are detected. The USG has already imposed export controls restricting certain gaming GPUs, and if the USG expands such controls to restrict additional gaming products, it may disrupt a significant portion of our supply and distribution chain and negatively impact sales of such products to markets outside China, including the U.S. and Europe. In addition, as the performance of the gaming GPUs increases over time, export controls may have a greater impact on our ability to compete in markets subject to those controls. Export controls may disrupt our supply have and distribution chain for a substantial portion of our products, which are warehoused likely in and distributed from Hong Kong. Export controls restricting our ability the future to sell data center GPUs may also negatively impact demand for our networking products used in servers containing our GPUs. The USG may also impose export controls on our networking products, such as high-speed network interconnects, to limit the ability of downstream parties to create large clusters for frontier model training. Any new control that impacts a wider range of our products would likely have a disproportionate impact on NVIDIA and may disadvantage us against certain of our competitors that sell chips that are outside the scope of such control. Excessive or shifting export Export controls have already and may in the future encourage customers outside China and other impacted regions to “design-out” certain U.S. semiconductors from their products to reduce the compliance burden and risk, and to ensure that they are able to serve markets worldwide. Excessive or shifting export Export controls have already encouraged and may in the future encourage overseas governments to request that our customers purchase from our competitors rather than NVIDIA or other U.S. firms, harming our business, market position, and financial results. As a result, excessive or shifting export controls may negatively impact demand for our products and services not only in China, but also in other markets, such as Europe, Latin America, and Southeast Asia. Excessive or shifting export controls increase the risk of investing in U.S. advanced semiconductor products, because by the time a new product is ready for market, it may be subject to new unilateral export controls restricting its sale. At the same time, such controls may increase investment in foreign competitors, which would be less likely to be restricted by U.S. controls. If additional products are subject to worldwide licensing requirements, we may incur significant inventory provisions and excess purchase obligation charges.

The putative derivative actions initially filed September 24, 2019 and pending in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, Lipchitz v. Huang, et al. (Case No. 1:19-cv-01795-MN) and Nelson v. Huang, et. al. (Case No. 1:19-cv-01798-MN), were stayed pending resolution of the plaintiffs’ appeal in the In Re NVIDIA Corporation Securities Litigation action. On February 5, 2025, after the Supreme Court issued its judgment dismissing the Company’s petition for writ of certiorari as improvidently granted in the In Re NVIDIA Corporation Securities Litigation action, the district court extended the stay for 30 days while the parties discuss next steps and ordered the parties to file a joint status report by March 7, 2025. The lawsuits assert claims, purportedly on behalf of us, against certain officers and directors of the Company for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, insider trading, misappropriation of information, corporate waste and violations of Sections 14(a), 10(b), and 20(a) of the Exchange Act based on the dissemination of allegedly false, and misleading statements related to channel inventory and the impact of cryptocurrency mining on GPU demand. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and other relief, including disgorgement of profits from the sale of NVIDIA stock and unspecified corporate governance measures.

Our calculation of deferred tax assets and liabilities is based on certain estimates and judgments and involves dealing with uncertainties in the application of complex tax laws. Our estimates of deferred tax assets and liabilities may change based, in part, on added certainty or finality to an anticipated outcome, changes in accounting standards or tax laws in the U.S., or foreign jurisdictions where we operate, or changes in other facts or circumstances. In addition, we recognize liabilities for potential U.S. and foreign income tax contingencies based on our estimate of whether, and the extent to which, additional taxes may be due. If we determine that payment of these amounts is unnecessary or if the recorded tax liability is less than our current assessment, we may be required to recognize an income tax benefit or additional income tax expense in our financial statements accordingly.

From January 27, 2025 26, 2026 through February 21, 2025, 20, 2026, we repurchased 29 8 million shares for $3.7 $1.5 billion pursuant to a pre-established trading plan. We may execute repurchases from time to time, subject to market conditions, operating requirements, and other investment opportunities, in the open market, in privately negotiated transactions, pursuant to a Rule 10b5-1 trading plan or in structured share repurchase agreements in compliance with Rule 10b-18 of the Exchange Act. Our share repurchase program aims to offset dilution from shares issued to employees while maintaining adequate liquidity to meet may be suspended at any time at our operating requirements. We may pursue additional share repurchases as we weigh market factors and other investment opportunities. discretion.