The Company primarily leases office space, with various expiration dates through June 2029. Some of the leases include options to extend such leases for up to five years, and some include options to terminate such leases within one year. The terms of certain of the Company's leases provide for rental payments on a graduated scale. The Company determines if an arrangement is a lease at inception. Operating leases are included in operating lease right-of-use (“ROU”) assets, accrued liabilities, and non-current operating lease liabilities in the unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheets. Leases with an initial term of 12 months or less are not recorded on the balance sheet. Lease expense for fixed lease payments are recognized in the unaudited condensed consolidated statements of operations on a straight-line basis over the lease term and variable lease payments in the period in which the obligation for those payments is incurred. Gross lease expense was $1.8 million and $1.4 million for the three months ended July 3, 2022 and June 27, 2021, respectively, and $3.6 million and $3.1 million for the six months ended July 3, 2022 and June 27, 2021, respectively. The lease expense was recorded within Cost of revenue, Research and development, Sales and marketing, and General and administrative expense in the Company's unaudited condensed consolidated statements of operations. Short-term leases and variable lease costs were included in the lease expense and they were immaterial. The Company recorded sublease income as reduction of lease expense, in the amount of $0.5 million and $1.0 million for the three and six months ended July 3, 2022.

During the second quarter of 2021, the Company reviewed certain of its right-of-use assets and other lease related assets in conjunction with the evaluation of its real estate lease portfolio and recorded an impairment charge of $9.1 million, which includes $6.8 million associated with the right-of-use asset and $2.3 million associated with other lease related property and equipment assets, for the three and six months ended June 27, 2021. Subsequent to the impairment, lease expense for the lease payments related to the impaired right-of-use asset is no longer recognized on a straight-line basis. The associated lease liability is amortized using the same effective interest method as before the impairment charge. The impaired right-of-use asset, however, is subsequently amortized on a straight-line basis. Refer to Note 4, Balance Sheet Components, for further information about the impairment of the right-of-use asset and long-lived assets.

The Company has entered into various inventory-related purchase agreements with suppliers. Generally, under these agreements, 50% of orders are cancelable by giving notice 46 to 60 days prior to the expected shipment date and 25% of orders are cancelable by giving notice 31 to 45 days prior to the expected shipment date. Orders are non-cancelable within 30 days prior to the expected shipment date. As of July 3, 2022, the Company had approximately $67.3 million in non-cancelable purchase commitments with suppliers. As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Company has experienced an elongation of the time from order placement to production primarily due to component shortages and supply chain disruptions. In order to reduce manufacturing lead-times and to ensure an adequate supply of inventories, the Company has worked with its suppliers to place longer lead-time purchase orders to ensure availability of components and materials from its supply chain. Under this circumstance, the Company may be obligated to purchase long lead-time component inventory procured in accordance with its forecasts. As of July 3, 2022, a further $55.7 million of purchase orders beyond contractual termination periods have been issued to supply chain partners in anticipation of demand requirements. Consequently, the Company may incur expenses for materials and components, such as chipsets purchased by the supplier to fulfill the purchase order if the purchase order is cancelled. Expenses incurred in respect of cancelled purchase orders has historically not been significant relative to the original order value. The Company establishes a loss liability for all products it does not expect to sell for which it has committed purchases from suppliers. As of July 3, 2022, the loss liability from committed purchases was $0.3 million. From time to time the Company’s suppliers procure unique complex components on the Company’s behalf. If these components do not meet specified technical criteria or are defective, the Company should not be obligated to purchase the materials.

The Company is involved in disputes, litigation, and other legal actions, including, but not limited to, the matters described below. In all cases, at each reporting period, the Company evaluates whether or not a potential loss amount or a potential range of loss is probable and reasonably estimable under the provisions of the authoritative guidance that addresses accounting for contingencies. In such cases, the Company accrues for the amount or, if a range, the Company accrues the low end of the range, only if there is not a better estimate than any other amount within the range, as a component of legal expense within litigation reserves, net. The Company monitors developments in these legal matters that could affect the estimate the Company had previously accrued. In relation to such matters, the Company currently believes that there are no existing claims or proceedings that are likely to have a material adverse effect on its financial position within the next 12 months, or the outcome of these matters is currently not determinable. There are many uncertainties associated with any litigation, and these actions or other third-party claims against the Company may cause the Company to incur costly litigation and/or substantial settlement charges. In addition, the resolution of any intellectual property litigation may require the Company to make royalty payments, which could have an adverse effect in future periods. If any of those events were to occur, the Company's business, financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows could be adversely affected. The actual liability in any such matters may be materially different from the Company's estimates, which could result in the need to adjust the liability and record additional expenses.

Beginning on December 11, 2018, purported stockholders of Arlo Technologies, Inc. filed six putative securities class action complaints in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, and one complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and certain of its executives and directors. Some of these actions also name as defendants the underwriters in the Company’s initial public offering ("IPO") and NETGEAR, Inc. ("NETGEAR"). The actions pending in state court are Aversa v. Arlo Technologies, Inc., et al., No. 18CV339231, filed Dec. 11, 2018; Pham v. Arlo Technologies, Inc. et al., No. 19CV340741, filed January 9, 2019; Patel v. Arlo Technologies, Inc., No. 19CV340758, filed January 10, 2019; Perros v. NetGear, Inc., No. 19CV342071, filed February 1, 2019; Vardanian v. Arlo Technologies, Inc., No. 19CV342318, filed February 8, 2019; and Hill v. Arlo Technologies, Inc. et al., No. 19CV343033, filed February 22, 2019. On April 26, 2019, the state court consolidated these actions as In re Arlo Technologies, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, No. 18CV339231 (the “State Action"). The action in federal court is Wong v. Arlo Technologies, Inc. et al., No. 19-CV-00372 (the “Federal Action”).

The plaintiffs in the State Action filed a consolidated complaint on May 1, 2019. The plaintiffs allege that the Company failed to adequately disclose quality control problems and adverse sales trends ahead of its IPO, violating the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"). The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief on behalf of investors who purchased Company common stock issued pursuant and/or traceable to the IPO. On June 21, 2019, the court stayed the State Action pending resolution of the Federal Action, given the substantial overlap between the claims.

In the Federal Action, the court appointed a shareholder named Matis Nayman as lead plaintiff. On June 7, 2019, plaintiff filed an amended complaint. Lead Plaintiff alleges violations of the Securities Act and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, based on alleged materially false and misleading statements about the Company’s sales trends and products. In the amended complaint, lead plaintiff sought to represent a class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company’s common stock (i) during the period between August 3, 2018 through December 3, 2018 and/or (ii) pursuant to or traceable to the IPO. Lead plaintiff seeks class certification, an award of unspecified damages, an award of costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees, and other further relief as the court may deem just and proper.

On August 6, 2019, defendants filed a motion to dismiss. The federal court granted that motion, and lead plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. On June 12, 2020, lead plaintiff filed an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of a class action settlement for $1.25 million, which was also the amount that the Company had accrued for loss contingency. On September 24, 2020, the federal court entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement. On February 5, 2021, lead plaintiff filed a motion for final approval of the settlement. In October 2020, the Company made a $1.25 million payment an escrow account administered by the court and plaintiff’s counsel (the “Settlement Fund”). The

On February 5, 2021, lead plaintiff filed a motion for final approval of the settlement. In advance of the final approval hearing, three of the named plaintiffs in the State Action requested exclusion from the settlement. The court held a final approval hearing on March 11, 2021, and, on March 25, 2021, entered an order and final judgment approving the settlement and, among other things, dismissing with prejudice all claims of lead plaintiff and the Settlement Class (as defined in the settlement agreement). On April 19, 2021, the Court issued an amended order and corrected judgment to include defendant NETGEAR, who had been inadvertently omitted from the prior order and final judgment. The Federal Action is now closed.

In the State Action, on May 5, 2021, the court held a status conference. At that conference, the state court instructed plaintiffs Perros, Patel, and Pham (“Plaintiffs”), who were the only Arlo stockholders to opt out of the federal settlement, to file an amended complaint by June 4, 2021. Plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint on June 4, 2021, asserting their individual Securities Act claims, but also purporting to represent a new class of Arlo stockholders who purchased Arlo shares between December 3, 2018 and February 22, 2019 and fell outside the Settlement Class (as defined in the federal settlement). On June 21, 2021, the Arlo defendants filed a motion to dismiss the State Action (for forum non conveniens) based on the federal forum provision in Arlo’s certificate of incorporation. Plaintiffs opposed on July 28, 2021, and the Arlo defendants replied on August 13, 2021. On July 6, 2021, defendants filed multiple demurrers to the second amended complaint. Plaintiffs filed their oppositions on August 12, 2021, and defendants filed their replies on August 27, 2021. On September 9, 2021, the court issued an order granting the Arlo defendants’ forum non conveniens motion, and on September 17, 2021, the court issued a final judgment dismissing the State Action in its entirety. On November 16, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal. The appeal is pending before the California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District. Plaintiffs-Appellants filed their opening brief on May 20, 2022. Defendants-Respondents must file their brief on or before August 18, 2022. The court has not yet set a date for oral argument.

In addition to the State Action and the Federal Action, a purported stockholder named Leonard Pinto filed a tagalong derivative action on June 13, 2019 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned Pinto v. Arlo Technologies, Inc. et al., No. 19-CV-03354 (the “Derivative Action”). The Derivative Action is brought on behalf of the Company against the majority of the Company’s current directors. The complaint is based on the same alleged misconduct as the securities class actions but asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, and violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. On August 20, 2019, the court stayed the Derivative Action in deference to the Federal Action. On April 8, 2021, because it had granted final approval of the settlement in the Federal Action, the court lifted the stay in the Derivative Action and asked the parties to file a joint status report by April 22, 2021. In their status report, the parties stipulated to a schedule for plaintiff to file an amended complaint and for the parties to brief a motion to dismiss. Plaintiff filed his amended complaint on May 24, 2021. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on July 9, 2021. On August 23, 2021, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. Defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaint on December 17, 2021. Plaintiff filed his opposition on January 31, 2022, and defendants filed their reply on March 2, 2022. On July 28, 2022, the Court heard defendants’ motion to dismiss. At the hearing, the Court informed the parties that it was inclined to grant defendants’ motion for lack of jurisdiction, but no order has yet been issued.

On December 18, 2020, Skybell Technologies, Inc., SB IP Holdings, LLC, and Eyetalk365, LLC (collectively, “Complainants” or “Skybell”) filed a Section 337 complaint against the Company, Vivint Smart Home, Inc. (“Vivint”), and SimpliSafe, Inc. (“SimpliSafe”) (collectively “Respondents”) at the U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC”). The action alleges that the Company’s cameras and video doorbell cameras infringe seven patents: 10,097,796 (“the ’796 patent”), 10,200,660 (“the ’660 patent”), 10,523,906 (“the ’906 patent”), 10,097,797 (“the ’797 patent”), 9,485,478 (“the ’478 patent”), 10,674,120 (“the ’120 patent”), and 9,432,638 (“the ’638 patent”) (collectively, “the Asserted Patents”) in

On September 15, 2021, the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) hearing the case at the ITC issued an Initial Determination (“ID”) ruling that all the Asserted Patents are invalid. The ALJ agreed with Respondents’ contention that there was an impermissible break in priority chains of the applications of the Asserted Patents during their prosecution – meaning that certain of Skybell’s prior issued patents fully anticipated or invalidated all the Asserted Patents. Therefore, the ALJ ruled that there can be no patent infringement or violation of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 by the Respondents.

Skybell appealed the ID by submitting its Petition for Review to the ITC on September 27, 2021, and the Respondents submitted their Response to the Petition to Review on October 4, 2021. On November 10, 2021, The ITC affirmed the ALJ’s ruling and did not grant any review of the ID, meaning that there is no trial on the ITC docket since there are no valid patents remaining, and the case is concluded at the ITC level. On January 9, 2022, Skybell filed its Notice of Appeal to the Federal Circuit to appeal the ITC’s rulings invalidating the Asserted Patents.

The Company, as permitted under Delaware law and in accordance with its bylaws, has agreed to indemnify its officers and directors for certain events or occurrences, subject to certain conditions, while the officer or director is or was serving at the Company’s request in such capacity. The term of the indemnification period is for the officer’s or director’s lifetime. The maximum amount of potential future indemnification is unlimited; however, the Company has a director and officer insurance policy that will enable it to recover a portion of any future amounts paid. As a result of its insurance policy coverage, the Company believes the fair value of each indemnification agreement will be minimal. The Company had no liabilities recorded for these agreements as of July 3, 2022 and December 31, 2021.

Prior to the completion of the IPO, the Company historically participated in NETGEAR’s sales agreements. In its sales agreements, NETGEAR typically agrees to indemnify its direct customers, distributors and resellers (the “Indemnified Parties”) for any expenses or liability resulting from claimed infringements by NETGEAR’s products of patents, trademarks or copyrights of third parties that are asserted against the Indemnified Parties, subject to customary carve-outs. The terms of these indemnification agreements are generally perpetual after execution of the agreement. The maximum amount of potential future indemnification is generally unlimited. From time to time, the Company receives requests for indemnity and may choose to assume the defense of such litigation asserted against the Indemnified Parties. The Company had no liabilities recorded for these agreements as of July 3, 2022 and December 31, 2021. In connection with the separation of Arlo from NETGEAR (the "Separation"), and after July 1, 2018, certain sales agreements were transferred to the Company, and the Company has replaced certain shared contracts, which include similar indemnification terms.

In addition, pursuant to the master separation agreement and certain other agreements entered into with NETGEAR in connection with the Separation and the IPO, NETGEAR has agreed to indemnify the Company for certain liabilities. The master separation agreement provides for cross-indemnities principally designed to place financial responsibility for the obligations and liabilities of its business with the Company and financial responsibility for the obligations and liabilities of NETGEAR’s business with NETGEAR. Under the intellectual property rights cross-license agreement entered into between the Company and NETGEAR, each party, in its capacity as a licensee, indemnifies the other party, in its capacity as a licensor, and its directors, officers, agents, successors and subsidiaries against any losses

suffered by such indemnified party as a result of the indemnifying party’s practice of the intellectual property licensed to such indemnifying party under the intellectual property rights cross-license agreement. Also, under the tax matters agreement entered into between the Company and NETGEAR, each party is liable for, and indemnifies the other party and its subsidiaries from and against any liability for, taxes that are allocated to the indemnifying party under the tax matters agreement. In addition, the Company has agreed in the tax matters agreement that each party will generally be responsible for any taxes and related amounts imposed on it or NETGEAR as a result of the failure of the special stock dividend (the “Distribution”) by NETGEAR to NETGEAR stockholders of the 62,500,000 shares of Arlo common stock owned by NETGEAR that was made on December 31, 2018, together with certain related transactions, to qualify as a transaction that is generally tax-free, for U.S. federal income tax purposes, under Sections 355 and 368(a)(1)(D) and certain other relevant provisions of the Internal Revenue Code (the "Code"), to the extent that the failure to so qualify is attributable to actions, events or transactions relating to such party’s respective stock, assets or business, or a breach of the relevant representations or covenants made by that party in the tax matters agreement. The transition services agreement generally provides that the applicable service recipient indemnifies the applicable service provider for liabilities that such service provider incurs arising from the provision of services other than liabilities arising from such service provider’s gross negligence, bad faith or willful misconduct or material breach of the transition services agreement, and that the applicable service provider indemnifies the applicable service recipient for liabilities that such service recipient incurs arising from such service provider’s gross negligence, bad faith or willful misconduct or material breach of the transition services agreement. Pursuant to the registration rights agreement, the Company has agreed to indemnify NETGEAR and its subsidiaries that hold registrable securities (and their directors, officers, agents and, if applicable, each other person who controls such holder under Section 15 of the Securities Act) registering shares pursuant to the registration rights agreement against certain losses, expenses and liabilities under the Securities Act, common law or otherwise. NETGEAR and its subsidiaries that hold registrable securities similarly indemnify the Company but such indemnification will be limited to an amount equal to the net proceeds received by such holder under the sale of registrable securities giving rise to the indemnification obligation.

The Company has entered into change in control and severance agreements with certain of its executive officers (the “Severance Agreements”). Pursuant to the Severance Agreements, upon a termination without cause or resignation with good reason, the individual would be entitled to (1) cash severance equal to (a) the individual’s annual base salary and an additional amount equal to his or her target annual bonus (for the Chief Executive Officer) or (b) the individual’s annual base salary (for other executive officers), (2) 12 months of health benefits continuation, and (3) accelerated vesting of any unvested time-based equity awards that would have vested during the 12 months following the termination date. Upon a termination without cause or resignation with good reason that occurs during the one month prior to or 12 months following a change in control, the individual would be entitled to (1) cash severance equal to a multiple (2 times for the Chief Executive Officer and 1 times for other executive officers) of the sum of the individual’s annual base salary and target annual bonus, (2) a number of months of health benefits continuation (24 months for the Chief Executive Officer and 12 months for other executive officers) and (3) vesting of all outstanding, unvested equity awards (for the Chief Executive Officer) and the vesting of all outstanding, unvested time-based equity awards (for other executive officers). Severance will be conditioned upon the execution and non-revocation of a release of claims. The Company had no liabilities recorded for these agreements as of July 3, 2022.