Litigation and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Apr. 30, 2021
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Litigation and Contingencies	Litigation and Contingencies HP is involved in lawsuits, claims, investigations and proceedings, including those identified below, consisting of IP, commercial, securities, employment, employee benefits and environmental matters that arise in the ordinary course of business. HP accrues a liability when management believes that it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. HP believes it has recorded adequate provisions for any such matters and, as of April 30, 2021, it was not reasonably possible that a material loss had been incurred in excess of the amounts recognized in HP’s financial statements. HP reviews these matters at least quarterly and adjusts its accruals to reflect the impact of negotiations, settlements, rulings, advice of legal counsel, and other information and events pertaining to a particular case. Pursuant to the separation and distribution agreement, HP shares responsibility with Hewlett Packard Enterprise for certain matters, as indicated below, and Hewlett Packard Enterprise has agreed to indemnify HP in whole or in part with respect to certain matters. Based on its experience, HP believes that any damage amounts claimed in the specific matters discussed below are not a meaningful indicator of HP’s potential liability. Litigation is inherently unpredictable. However, HP believes it has valid defenses with respect to legal matters pending against it. Nevertheless, cash flows or results of operations could be materially affected in any particular period by the resolution of one or more of these contingencies. Litigation, Proceedings and Investigations Copyright Levies. Proceedings are ongoing or have been concluded involving HP in certain European countries, including litigation in Belgium and other countries, seeking to impose or modify levies upon IT equipment (such as multifunction devices (“MFDs”) and PCs), alleging that these devices enable the production of private copies of copyrighted materials. The levies are generally based upon the number of products sold and the per-product amounts of the levies, which vary. Some European countries that do not yet have levies on digital devices are expected to implement similar legislation to enable them to extend existing levy schemes, while other European countries have phased out levies or are expected to limit the scope of levy schemes and applicability in the digital hardware environment, particularly with respect to sales to business users. HP, other companies and various industry associations have opposed the extension of levies to the digital environment and have advocated alternative models of compensation to rights holders. Reprobel SCRL (“Reprobel”), a collecting society administering the remuneration for reprography to Belgian copyright holders, requested by extrajudicial means that HP amend certain copyright levy declarations submitted for inkjet MFDs sold in Belgium from January 2005 to December 2009 to enable it to collect copyright levies calculated based on the generally higher copying speed when the MFDs are operated in draft print mode rather than when operated in normal print mode. In March 2010, HP filed a lawsuit against Reprobel in the Brussels Court of First Instance in Belgium, seeking a declaratory judgment that no copyright levies are payable on sales of MFDs in Belgium or, alternatively, that payments already made by HP are sufficient to comply with its obligations. The Brussels Court of Appeal (the “Court of Appeal”) stayed the proceedings and referred several questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”). On November 12, 2015, the CJEU published its judgment providing that a national legislation such as the Belgian one at issue in the main proceedings is incompatible with EU law on multiple legal points, as argued by HP, and returned the proceedings to the referring court. On May 12, 2017, the Court of Appeal held that (1) reprographic copyright levies are due notwithstanding the lack of conformity of the Belgian system with EU law in certain aspects and (2) the applicable levies are to be calculated based on the objective speed of each MFD as established by an expert appointed by the Court of Appeal. HP appealed this decision before the Belgian Supreme Court on January 18, 2018. The Belgian Supreme Court rejected HP’s appeal on September 24, 2020 and the matter has been remitted to the Court of Appeal, where the expert will give an opinion on the objective speed and amount of compensation due. Based on industry opposition to the extension of levies to digital products, HP’s assessments of the merits of various proceedings and HP’s estimates of the number of units impacted and the amounts of the levies, HP has accrued amounts that it believes are adequate to address the ongoing disputes. Hewlett-Packard Company v. Oracle Corporation. On June 15, 2011, HP filed suit against Oracle Corporation (“Oracle”) in California Superior Court in Santa Clara County in connection with Oracle’s March 2011 announcement that it was discontinuing software support for HP’s Itanium-based line of mission-critical servers. HP asserted, among other things, that Oracle’s actions breached the contract that was signed by the parties as part of the settlement of the litigation relating to Oracle’s hiring of Mark Hurd. The matter eventually progressed to trial, which was bifurcated into two phases. HP prevailed in the first phase of the trial, in which the court ruled that the contract at issue required Oracle to continue to offer its software products on HP’s Itanium-based servers for as long as HP decided to sell such servers. The second phase of the trial was then postponed by Oracle’s appeal of the trial court’s denial of Oracle’s “anti-SLAPP” motion, in which Oracle argued that HP’s damages claim infringed on Oracle’s First Amendment rights. On August 27, 2015, the California Court of Appeals rejected Oracle’s appeal. The matter was remanded to the trial court for the second phase of the trial, which began on May 23, 2016 and was submitted to the jury on June 29, 2016. On June 30, 2016, the jury returned a verdict in favor of HP, awarding HP approximately $3.0 billion in damages, which included approximately $1.7 billion for past lost profits and $1.3 billion for future lost profits. On October 20, 2016, the court entered judgment for HP for this amount with interest accruing until the judgment is paid. Oracle’s motion for new trial was denied on December 19, 2016, and Oracle filed its notice of appeal from the trial court’s judgment on January 17, 2017. On February 2, 2017, HP filed a notice of cross-appeal challenging the trial court’s denial of prejudgment interest. The case is fully briefed and oral argument in front of the Court of Appeals was held on May 27, 2021. Litigation is unpredictable, and there can be no assurance that HP will recover damages, or that any award of damages will be for the amount awarded by the jury’s verdict. The amount ultimately awarded, if any, would be recorded in the period received. No adjustment has been recorded in the financial statements in relation to this potential award. Pursuant to the terms of the separation and distribution agreement, HP and Hewlett Packard Enterprise will share equally in any recovery from Oracle once Hewlett Packard Enterprise has been reimbursed for all costs incurred in the prosecution of the action prior to the Separation. Forsyth, et al. v. HP Inc. and Hewlett Packard Enterprise. This is a purported class and collective action filed on August 18, 2016 in the United States District Court, Northern District of California, against HP and Hewlett Packard Enterprise alleging the defendants violated the Federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, California public policy and the California Business and Professions Code by terminating older workers and replacing them with younger workers. The operative complaint is the Fourth Amended Complaint, filed in July 2020. By their complaint, plaintiffs seek to represent (1) a putative nationwide ADEA collective comprised of all individuals 40 years of age and older who had their employment terminated pursuant to a WFR plan on or after December 9, 2014 or April 8, 2015, depending on state law; and (2) a putative Rule 23 class under California law comprised of all individuals 40 years of age and older who had their employment terminated in California pursuant to a WFR plan on or after August 18, 2012. Excluded from the putative collective and class are employees who (a) signed a Waiver and General Release Agreement at termination, or (b) signed an Agreement to Arbitrate Claims. A similar purported collective and class are proposed for Hewlett Packard Enterprise, but the periods start on November 1, 2015. Plaintiffs seek monetary damages in the form of back and front pay and benefits, liquidated damages under the ADEA, punitive damages under the state law claims, an award of attorneys’ fees, and other relief. In December 2020, plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary certification of the putative nationwide ADEA collectives, and the Court granted this motion on April 13, 2021. As a result, potential members of the ADEA collectives will be notified of their right to opt into the case to join the current thirty-six named and opt-in plaintiffs. India Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Proceedings. On April 30 and May 10, 2010, the India Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (the “DRI”) issued show cause notices to Hewlett-Packard India Sales Private Limited (“HP India”), a subsidiary of HP, seven HP India employees and one former HP India employee alleging that HP India underpaid customs duties while importing products and spare parts into India and seeking to recover an aggregate of approximately $370 million, plus penalties. Prior to the issuance of the show cause notices, HP India deposited approximately $16 million with the DRI and agreed to post a provisional bond in exchange for the DRI’s agreement to not seize HP India products and spare parts and to not interrupt the transaction of business by HP India. On April 11, 2012, the Bangalore Commissioner of Customs issued an order on the products-related show cause notice affirming certain duties and penalties against HP India and the named individuals of approximately $386 million, of which HP India had already deposited $9 million. On December 11, 2012, HP India voluntarily deposited an additional $10 million in connection with the products-related show cause notice. The differential duty demand is subject to interest. On April 20, 2012, the Commissioner issued an order on the parts-related show cause notice affirming certain duties and penalties against HP India and certain of the named individuals of approximately $17 million, of which HP India had already deposited $7 million. After the order, HP India deposited an additional $3 million in connection with the parts-related show cause notice so as to avoid certain penalties. HP India filed appeals of the Commissioner’s orders before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (the “Customs Tribunal”) along with applications for waiver of the pre-deposit of remaining demand amounts as a condition for hearing the appeals. The Customs Department has also filed cross-appeals before the Customs Tribunal. On January 24, 2013, the Customs Tribunal ordered HP India to deposit an additional $24 million against the products order, which HP India deposited in March 2013. The Customs Tribunal did not order any additional deposit to be made under the parts order. In December 2013, HP India filed applications before the Customs Tribunal seeking early hearing of the appeals as well as an extension of the stay of deposit as to HP India and the individuals already granted until final disposition of the appeals. On February 7, 2014, the application for extension of the stay of deposit was granted by the Customs Tribunal until disposal of the appeals. On October 27, 2014, the Customs Tribunal commenced hearings on the cross-appeals of the Commissioner’s orders. The Customs Tribunal rejected HP India’s request to remand the matter to the Commissioner on procedural grounds. The hearings scheduled to reconvene on April 6, 2015 and again on November 3, 2015 and April 11, 2016 were cancelled at the request of the Customs Tribunal. A hearing scheduled for January 15, 2019 was cancelled. On January 20, 2021, the Customs Tribunal held a virtual hearing during which the judge allowed HP’s application for a physical hearing on the merits as soon as practicable, which will be scheduled when physical hearings resume at court. Pursuant to the separation and distribution agreement, Hewlett Packard Enterprise has agreed to indemnify HP in part, based on the extent to which any liability arises from the products and spare parts of Hewlett Packard Enterprise’s businesses. Slingshot Printing LLC Litigation. On June 11, 2019, Slingshot Printing LLC (“Slingshot”) filed three complaints in U.S. District Court in the Western District of Texas alleging HP infringes or has infringed sixteen patents. On September 20, 2019, Slingshot filed a fourth complaint and amended the three earlier complaints, alleging that HP infringes or has infringed thirty-two patents. On December 12, 2019, Slingshot voluntarily dismissed its allegations as to one patent because it did not own a related patent. On January 23, 2020, Slingshot filed a fifth complaint, re-asserting the dismissed patent as well as the related patent. On February 13, 2020, Slingshot voluntarily dismissed its allegations as to another patent, which was asserted in its third complaint. On March 25, 2020, Slingshot voluntarily dismissed its allegations as to an additional patent, which was also asserted in its third complaint. The five complaints assert a total of 31 patents and seek monetary damages. The accused products include inkjet printers, cartridges, and printheads. In December 2020, HP received notice that in September 2020, Slingshot filed two actions in China’s Guangzhou IP Specialized Court that had been removed to Guangdong High Court. The Guangzhou cases assert two patents related to patents in the U.S. litigation. On January 14, 2021, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board granted HP’s petitions to challenge the validity of four Slingshot patents and instituted inter partes review. On January 31, 2021, HP and Slingshot entered into an agreement to resolve all litigation. The U.S. civil actions have been dismissed and HP’s petitions have been terminated. Petitions for dismissal of the Guangzhou cases have been filed. Philips Patent Litigation. On September 17, 2020, Koninklijke Philips N.V. and Philips North America LLC (collectively, “Philips”) filed a complaint against HP for patent infringement in federal court for the District of Delaware. On September 18, 2020, Philips filed a companion complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC”) pursuant to Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 against HP and 8 other sets of respondents. Both the district court complaint and the ITC complaint allege that certain digital video-capable devices and components thereof infringe four of Philips owned patents. On October 16, 2020, the ITC instituted an investigation. The ITC has scheduled an evidentiary trial for July 19, 2021 and is expected to render an initial determination on October 22, 2021, and a final decision on February 22, 2022. In the ITC proceeding, Philips seeks an order enjoining respondents from importing, or selling after importation, certain digital video-capable devices and components thereof, including certain PCs, display devices, and components thereof. In the district court action, Philips seeks unspecified damages and an injunction against HP, among other remedies. Caltech Patent Litigation. On November 11, 2020, the California Institute of Technology (“Caltech”) filed a complaint against HP for patent infringement in the federal court for the Western District of Texas. On March 19, 2021, Caltech filed an amendment to this same complaint. The complaint as amended alleges infringement of five of Caltech’s patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 7,116,710; 7,421,032; 7,716,552; 7,916,781; and 8,284,833. The accused products are HP commercial and consumer PCs as well as wireless printers that comply with the IEEE 802.11n, 802.11ac, and/or 802.11ax standards. Caltech seeks unspecified damages and other relief. In re HP Inc. Securities Litigation (Electrical Workers Pension Fund, Local 103, I.B.E.W. v. HP Inc., et al.). On February 19, 2020, Electrical Workers Pension Fund, Local 103, I.B.E.W. filed a putative class action complaint against HP, Dion Weisler, Catherine Lesjak, and Steven Fieler in U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California. On May 20, 2020, the court appointed the State of Rhode Island, Office of the General Treasurer, on behalf of the Employees’ Retirement System of Rhode Island and Iron Workers Local 580 Joint Funds as Lead Plaintiffs. On July 20, 2020, Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which additionally named as defendants Enrique Lores and Christoph Schell. On October 2, 2020, HP and the named officers filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. On March 19, 2021, the court granted HP’s motion to dismiss and granted plaintiffs leave to amend the complaint. On May 3, 2021, plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint, which no longer names Christoph Schell as a defendant. The second amended complaint alleges, among other things, that from February 23, 2017 to October 3, 2019, HP and the named officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by making false or misleading statements about HP’s printing supplies business, including alleged statements made about changes to HP’s channel inventory management and sales practices, and stabilization of printing supplies revenue. It further alleges that Dion Weisler and Enrique Lores violated Sections 10(b) and 20A of the Exchange Act by allegedly selling shares of HP common stock during this period while in possession of material, non-public adverse information about HP’s printing supplies business. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and other relief. York County on behalf of the County of York Retirement Fund v. HP Inc., et al., and related proceedings. On November 5, 2020, York County, on behalf of the County of York Retirement Fund, filed a putative class action complaint against HP, Dion Weisler, and Catherine Lesjak in federal court in the Northern District of California. On February 11, 2021, the court appointed Maryland Electrical Industry Pension Fund as Lead Plaintiff. On April 21, 2021, Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint, which additionally names as defendants Enrique Lores and Richard Bailey. The complaint alleges, among other things, that from November 5, 2015 to June 21, 2016, HP and the named current and former officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by concealing material information and making false statements about HP’s printing supplies business, including information about HP’s channel inventory management and sales practices. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and other relief. On May 17, 2021, stockholder Scott Franklin filed a derivative complaint against certain current and former officers and directors in federal court in the District of Delaware. Plaintiff purports to bring the action on behalf of HP, which he has named as a nominal defendant, and it makes substantially the same factual allegations as in the York County securities complaint, bringing claims for breach of fiduciary duty and violations of securities laws. The derivative plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, governance reforms, and other relief. Legal Proceedings re Authentication of Supplies. Civil litigation or government investigations are pending in the United States, Italy, Israel, and the Netherlands involving supplies authentication protocols used in certain HP printers. These protocols are often referred to as Dynamic Security. The core allegations in these proceedings claim misleading or inadequate consumer notifications and permissions pertaining to the use of Dynamic Security, the impact of firmware updates, or the potential inability of cartridges with clone chips or circuitry to work in HP printers with Dynamic Security. 123Inkt Foundation litigation (Netherlands). On November 23, 2016, a foundation known as Stichting 123Inkt-Huismerk Klanten (the “Foundation”) filed a complaint in district court in Amsterdam against HP Nederland B.V. and HP Inc. arising out of the use of Dynamic Security in certain OfficeJet printers. Digital Revolution B.V. (a.k.a. 123Inkt) established the Foundation to pursue the interests of approximately 960 of its customers who transferred their claims to it. The complaint alleges: (1) violation of right of ownership; (2) destruction and damage to property; (3) computer vandalism; (4) unlawful act; (5) non-compliance; (6) unfair commercial practices; (7) misleading commercial practices; and (8) misleading advertising. The complaint seeks injunctive relief to prohibit use of Dynamic Security, damages, and attorneys’ fees. On December 27, 2017, the District Court dismissed the case and awarded fees to HP. On January 25, 2018, the Foundation filed a summons with the Amsterdam Court of Appeal to appeal. On December 17, 2019, the Court of Appeal set aside the judgment of the District Court, adopted a new decision declaring that HP provided inadequate and partially incorrect information to the Foundation members around September 13, 2016, awarded damages to them in an amount to be later determined, but denied all other claims, including injunctive relief, holding that the use of Dynamic Security is not inherently impermissible and the Foundation lacks legal interest to pursue such action. On March 19, 2020, the Foundation filed a cassation writ of summons with the Supreme Court of the Netherlands (Hoge Raad der Nederlanden) appealing the decision of the Court of Appeal. On May 29, 2020, HP filed its statement of defense and incidental appeal in cassation with the Supreme Court appealing the decision of the Court of Appeal. On October 30, 2020, the parties filed their opening briefs with the Supreme Court. The Attorney General will issue a non-binding opinion on June 25, 2021. Gensin v. HP Inc. (Israel). On October 25, 2017, a purported consumer class action, captioned Gensin v. HP Inc., was filed in the District Court in Jerusalem against HP arising out of the use of Dynamic Security in certain OfficeJet printers. The petition and motion for certification as a class action alleges: (1) tortious wrongdoing in violation of the Computers Law, 5755-1995; (2) breach of Contracts Law, 5731-1970; (3) breach of the Consumer Protection Law, 5741-1981; (4) negligence; and (5) improper enrichment. The named petitioner initially sought to represent nationwide classes comprised of anyone who “owns an HP printer that has been blocked, disrupted, or interfered with by HP in the use of ink cartridges not manufactured by HP” or who “purchased ink cartridges not manufactured by HP for use in the blocked printers.” Plaintiff seeks class relief, injunctive relief, damages, and attorneys’ fees. On November 16, 2017, a second purported consumer class action was filed against HP in the Central District Court, captioned Dror v. HP, Inc., also arising out of the use of Dynamic Security in certain OfficeJet printers. The petition and motion allege similar causes of action on behalf of similar nationwide classes. After the Dror case was consolidated with the Gensin case in Jerusalem, the District Court on June 24, 2018 dismissed the Dror case and designated Gensin as the lead matter. On March 9, 2020, the petitioner moved to modify the proposed nationwide class to be comprised of “[a]ll persons who have an HP printer and whose printer was blocked or rendered unusable by HP with any ink cartridge that is not made by HP” and “[a]ll persons who purchased ink cartridges that are not made by HP, for use in the Blocked Printers.” On July 2, 2020, HP filed its response to the amended petition. Parziale v. HP Inc. (United States). On August 27, 2019, a purported consumer class action was filed against HP in federal court in the Northern District of California arising out of the use of Dynamic Security in certain OfficeJet printers. The complaint alleges two causes of action under Florida Consumer Protection statutes: (1) violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, F.S.A. §§ 501.201 et seq., and (2) violation of the Florida Misleading Advertisement Law, F.S.A. §§ 817.41 et seq. The named plaintiff seeks to represent a nationwide class of “[a]ll United States Citizens who, between the applicable statute of limitations and the present, had an HP Printer that was modified to reject third party ink cartridges or refilled HP ink cartridges.” On November 13, 2019, plaintiff filed an amended complaint, adding three causes of action to the case: (1) violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030 et seq., (2) trespass to chattels, and (3) tortious interference with business relations. Plaintiff seeks class relief, injunctive relief, damages, including punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees. On December 30, 2019, HP moved to dismiss plaintiff’s amended complaint. On April 24, 2020, the Court granted in part and denied in part HP’s motion to dismiss. The Court dismissed plaintiff’s causes of action under the Florida Consumer Protection statutes, as well as the tortious interference with business relations claim and four of the five claims under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. The Court denied HP’s motion to dismiss on the remaining claims and on the request for injunctive relief and granted plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. On June 5, 2020, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on behalf of both a nationwide class and a Florida subclass alleging violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and trespass to chattels. Plaintiff sought class relief, injunctive relief, damages, including punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees. On September 29, 2020, the Court granted HP’s motion to dismiss, dismissing the case in full with prejudice. Plaintiff appealed, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has scheduled oral argument for July 29, 2021. Consumer Protection Investigation (Italy). On September 26, 2019, the Italian Competition Authority (Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato) (“AGCM”) served a Notice of Initiation of Proceedings on HP concerning the investigation of alleged aggressive practices involving undue influence on consumers and alleged misleading actions and omissions regarding the restriction or prevention of the use of third-party ink cartridges in HP printers, accompanied by a request for information. HP submitted its reply to the AGCM’s request for information on November 15, 2019 and has addressed subsequent requests for information. On May 22, 2020, the AGCM gave notice that it intended to expand its investigation into certain alleged warranty practices regarding the use of third-party cartridges. On June 26, 2020, HP submitted its response to the warranty allegations. On December 7, 2020, the AGCM notified HP of the AGCM’s final decision finding that HP engaged in two unfair commercial practices as follows: (a) the information HP provided to consumers about limitations on the use of certain third-party cartridges in HP printers was allegedly misleading pursuant to Articles 20, 21 and 22 of the Italian Consumer Code, and (b) the alleged use of data to deny warranty coverage and certain alleged data collection practices were aggressive pursuant to Articles 20, 24 and 25 of the Italian Consumer Code. The final decision (i) orders HP to end the allegedly unfair commercial practices; (ii) fines HP €5 million for each alleged unfair practice (total €10 million); (iii) requires HP to file a compliance report within 60 days; (iv) orders HP to publicly publish a corrective statement within 120 days; and (v) orders HP to amend the packaging of its printers within 120 days. On December 21, 2020, HP paid the imposed fines. On February 5, 2021, HP filed an appeal. On April 6, 2021, HP filed its compliance report. Digital Revolution B.V. v. HP Nederland B.V., et al. (Netherlands). On March 30, 2020, Digital Revolution B.V. (a.k.a. 123Inkt) served a complaint filed in Amsterdam District Court arising out of the use of Dynamic Security in certain HP printers. The complaint alleges several causes of action: (1) abuse of dominant position; (2) misleading advertising; (3) unfair and misleading commercial practice; and (4) misleading comparative advertising. The complaint seeks injunctive relief, including prohibition of Dynamic Security and disclosure of cartridge authentication protocols, damages, and attorneys’ fees. The parties’ initial appearance in front of the Court took place on July 8, 2020. On September 9, 2020, HP filed its defense and a counterclaim for unfair commercial practices and misleading and unlawful comparative advertising against Digital Revolution B.V. An oral hearing is scheduled for September 13, 2021. Mobile Emergency Housing Corp., et al. v. HP, Inc. (United States). On December 17, 2020, a putative consumer class action was filed against HP in federal court in the Northern District of California arising out of the use of Dynamic Security firmware updates. The complaint alleges seven claims under federal and California law: (1) violation of the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”) for allegedly causing “damage without authorization” to the plaintiffs’ printers; (2) violation of the California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act (“CDAFA”); (3) violation of the California False Advertising Law (“FAL”); (4) violation of the “fraudulent” prong of the California Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”); (5) violation of the “unfair” prong of the UCL; (6) violation of the “unlawful” prong of the UCL; and (7) trespass to chattels. Plaintiffs seek to represent a nationwide injunctive-relief class of “all persons in the United States who own a Class Printer” and a monetary relief subclass of those who experienced an error message due to third-party cartridge incompatibility resulting from a firmware update, defining “Class Printers” to include the “HP Color LaserJet Pro M254, HP Color LaserJet Pro MFP M280, HP Color LaserJet Pro MFP M281, and all other models affected” by the firmware updates described in the complaint. On February 10, 2021, HP filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, and in response, on March 2, 2021, plaintiffs amended their complaint. The amended complaint added an additional named plaintiff, a California state consumer subclass, and a California Consumers Legal Remedies Act claim seeking injunctive relief on behalf of the new plaintiff and the state consumer subclass. Plaintiffs subsequently filed Second and Third Amended Complaints respectively on March 19 and April 8, 2021. The Third Amended Complaint adds allegations pertaining to data collection—specifically, that HP allegedly collected data on the type of third-party cartridges that Plaintiffs used on their printers without their knowledge, in violation of the FAL and UCL and in a manner giving rise to a trespass of chattels. The Third Amended Complaint also pleads new claims under the CFAA and CDAFA based on these data collection allegations, as well as a new claim under the CDAFA based on the theory that HP lacked authorization to issue the firmware updates at issue. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, restitution, injunctive relief against alleged unfair business practices, and other relief. On May 24, 2021, HP filed a motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint. Autonomy-Related Legal Matters Investigations. As a result of the findings of an ongoing investigation, HP has provided information to the U.K. Serious Fraud Office, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and the SEC related to the accounting improprieties, disclosure failures and misrepresentations at Autonomy that occurred prior to and in connection with HP’s acquisition of Autonomy. On January 19, 2015, the U.K. Serious Fraud Office notified HP that it was closing its investigation and had decided to cede jurisdiction of the investigation to the U.S. authorities. On November 14, 2016, the DOJ announced that a federal grand jury indicted Sushovan Hussain, the former CFO of Autonomy. Mr. Hussain was charged with conspiracy to commit wire fraud, securities fraud, and multiple counts of wire fraud. The indictment alleged that Mr. Hussain engaged in a scheme to defraud purchasers and sellers of securities of Autonomy and HP about the true performance of Autonomy’s business, its financial condition, and its prospects for growth. A jury trial commenced on February 26, 2018. On April 30, 2018, the jury found Mr. Hussain guilty of all charges against him. On August 26, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the judgment of conviction against Mr. Hussain. On November 15, 2016, the SEC announced that Stouffer Egan, the former CEO of Autonomy’s U.S.-based operations, settled charges relating to his participation in an accounting scheme to meet internal sales targets and analyst revenue expectations. On November 29, 2018, the DOJ announced that a federal grand jury indicted Michael Lynch, former CEO of Autonomy, and Stephen Chamberlain, former VP of Finance of Autonomy. Dr. Lynch and Mr. Chamberlain were charged with conspiracy to commit wire fraud and multiple counts of wire fraud. HP is continuing to cooperate with the ongoing enforcement actions. Autonomy Corporation Limited v. Michael Lynch and Sushovan Hussain. On April 17, 2015, four former HP subsidiaries that became subsidiaries of Hewlett Packard Enterprise at the time of the Separation (Autonomy Corporation Limited, Hewlett Packard Vision BV, Autonomy Systems, Limited, and Autonomy, Inc.) initiated civil proceedings in the U.K. High Court of Justice against two members of Autonomy’s former management, Michael Lynch and Sushovan Hussain. The Particulars of Claim seek damages in excess of $5 billion from Messrs. Lynch and Hussain for breach of their fiduciary duties by causing Autonomy group companies to engage in improper transactions and accounting practices. On October 1, 2015, Messrs. Lynch and Hussain filed their defenses. Mr. Lynch also filed a counterclaim against Autonomy Corporation Limited seeking $160 million in damages, among other things, for alleged misstatements regarding Lynch. The Hewlett Packard Enterprise subsidiary claimants filed their replies to the defenses and the asserted counter-claim on March 11, 2016. Trial began on March 25, 2019 and was completed in January 2020. The parties are awaiting a ruling from the Court. Environmental HP’s business is subject to various federal, state, local and foreign laws and regulations that could result in costs or other sanctions that adversely affect our business and results of operations. For example, HP is subject to laws and regulations concerning environmental protection, including laws addressing the discharge of pollutants into the air and water, the management and disposal of hazardous substances and wastes, the clean-up of contaminated sites, the content of HP’s products and the recycling, treatment and disposal of those products, including batteries. In particular, HP faces increasing complexity in its product design and procurement operations as it adjusts to new and future requirements relating to the chemical and materials composition of its products, their safe use, the energy consumption associated with those products, climate change laws and regulations, and product repairability, reuse and take-back legislation. HP could incur substantial costs, its products could be restricted from entering certain jurisdictions, and it could face other sanctions, if it were to violate or become liable under environmental laws or if its products become noncompliant with environmental laws. HP’s potential exposure includes fines and civil or criminal sanctions, third-party property damage or personal injury claims and clean-up costs. The amount and timing of costs to comply with environmental laws are difficult to predict. HP is party to, or otherwise involved in, proceedings brought by U.S. or state environmental agencies under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), known as “Superfund,” or state laws similar to CERCLA, and may become a party to, or otherwise involved in, proceedings brought by private parties for contribution towards clean-up costs. HP is also conducting environmental investigations or remediations at several current or former operating sites pursuant to administrative orders or consent agreements with state environmental agencies. The separation and distribution agreement between HP and Hewlett Packard Enterprise includes provisions that provide for the allocation of environmental liabilities including certain remediation obligations; responsibilities arising from the chemical and materials composition of their respective products, their safe use and their energy consumption; obligations under product take back legislation that addresses the collection, recycling, treatment and disposal of products; and other environmental matters. HP will generally be responsible for environmental liabilities related to the properties and other assets, including products, allocated to HP under the separation and distribution agreement and other ancillary agreements. Under these agreements, HP will indemnify Hewlett Packard Enterprise for liabilities for specified ongoing remediation projects, subject to certain limitations, and Hewlett Packard Enterprise has a payment obligation for a specified portion of the cost of those remediation projects. In addition, HP will share with Hewlett Packard Enterprise other environmental liabilities as set forth in the separation and distribution agreement. HP is indemnified in whole or in part by Hewlett Packard Enterprise for liabilities arising from the assets assigned to Hewlett Packard Enterprise and for certain environmental matters as detailed in the separation and distribution agreement.

HP is involved in lawsuits, claims, investigations and proceedings, including those identified below, consisting of IP, commercial, securities, employment, employee benefits and environmental matters that arise in the ordinary course of business. HP accrues a liability when management believes that it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. HP believes it has recorded adequate provisions for any such matters and, as of April 30, 2021, it was not reasonably possible that a material loss had been incurred in excess of the amounts recognized in HP’s financial statements. HP reviews these matters at least quarterly and adjusts its accruals to reflect the impact of negotiations, settlements, rulings, advice of legal counsel, and other information and events pertaining to a particular case. Pursuant to the separation and distribution agreement, HP shares responsibility with Hewlett Packard Enterprise for certain matters, as indicated below, and Hewlett Packard Enterprise has agreed to indemnify HP in whole or in part with respect to certain matters. Based on its experience, HP believes that any damage amounts claimed in the specific matters discussed below are not a meaningful indicator of HP’s potential liability. Litigation is inherently unpredictable. However, HP believes it has valid defenses with respect to legal matters pending against it. Nevertheless, cash flows or results of operations could be materially affected in any particular period by the resolution of one or more of these contingencies.

Copyright Levies. Proceedings are ongoing or have been concluded involving HP in certain European countries, including litigation in Belgium and other countries, seeking to impose or modify levies upon IT equipment (such as multifunction devices (“MFDs”) and PCs), alleging that these devices enable the production of private copies of copyrighted materials. The levies are generally based upon the number of products sold and the per-product amounts of the levies, which vary. Some European countries that do not yet have levies on digital devices are expected to implement similar legislation to enable them to extend existing levy schemes, while other European countries have phased out levies or are expected to limit the scope of levy schemes and applicability in the digital hardware environment, particularly with respect to sales to business users.

Reprobel SCRL (“Reprobel”), a collecting society administering the remuneration for reprography to Belgian copyright holders, requested by extrajudicial means that HP amend certain copyright levy declarations submitted for inkjet MFDs sold in Belgium from January 2005 to December 2009 to enable it to collect copyright levies calculated based on the generally higher copying speed when the MFDs are operated in draft print mode rather than when operated in normal print mode. In March 2010, HP filed a lawsuit against Reprobel in the Brussels Court of First Instance in Belgium, seeking a declaratory judgment that no copyright levies are payable on sales of MFDs in Belgium or, alternatively, that payments already made by HP are sufficient to comply with its obligations. The Brussels Court of Appeal (the “Court of Appeal”) stayed the proceedings and referred several questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”). On November 12, 2015, the CJEU published its judgment providing that a national legislation such as the Belgian one at issue in the main proceedings is incompatible with EU law on multiple legal points, as argued by HP, and returned the proceedings to the referring court. On May 12, 2017, the Court of Appeal held that (1) reprographic copyright levies are due notwithstanding the lack of conformity of the Belgian system with EU law in certain aspects and (2) the applicable levies are to be calculated based on the objective speed of each MFD as established by an expert appointed by the Court of Appeal. HP appealed this decision before the Belgian Supreme Court on January 18, 2018. The Belgian Supreme Court rejected HP’s appeal on September 24, 2020 and the matter has been remitted to the Court of Appeal, where the expert will give an opinion on the objective speed and amount of compensation due.

Hewlett-Packard Company v. Oracle Corporation. On June 15, 2011, HP filed suit against Oracle Corporation (“Oracle”) in California Superior Court in Santa Clara County in connection with Oracle’s March 2011 announcement that it was discontinuing software support for HP’s Itanium-based line of mission-critical servers. HP asserted, among other things, that Oracle’s actions breached the contract that was signed by the parties as part of the settlement of the litigation relating to Oracle’s hiring of Mark Hurd. The matter eventually progressed to trial, which was bifurcated into two phases. HP prevailed in the first phase of the trial, in which the court ruled that the contract at issue required Oracle to continue to offer its software products on HP’s Itanium-based servers for as long as HP decided to sell such servers. The second phase of the trial was then postponed by Oracle’s appeal of the trial court’s denial of Oracle’s “anti-SLAPP” motion, in which Oracle argued that HP’s damages claim infringed on Oracle’s First Amendment rights. On August 27, 2015, the California Court of Appeals rejected Oracle’s appeal. The matter was remanded to the trial court for the second phase of the trial, which began on May 23, 2016 and was submitted to the jury on June 29, 2016. On June 30, 2016, the jury returned a verdict in favor of HP, awarding HP approximately $3.0 billion in damages, which included approximately $1.7 billion for past lost profits and $1.3 billion for future lost profits. On October 20, 2016, the court entered judgment for HP for this amount with interest accruing until the judgment is paid. Oracle’s motion for new trial was denied on December 19, 2016, and Oracle filed its notice of appeal from the trial court’s judgment on January 17, 2017. On February 2, 2017, HP filed a notice of cross-appeal challenging the trial court’s denial of prejudgment interest. The case is fully briefed and oral argument in front of the Court of Appeals was held on May 27, 2021. Litigation is unpredictable, and there can be no assurance that HP will recover damages, or that any award of damages will be for the amount awarded by the jury’s verdict. The amount ultimately awarded, if any, would be recorded in the period received. No adjustment has been recorded in the financial statements in relation to this potential award. Pursuant to the terms of the separation and distribution agreement, HP and Hewlett Packard Enterprise will share equally in any recovery from Oracle once Hewlett Packard Enterprise has been reimbursed for all costs incurred in the prosecution of the action prior to the Separation.

Forsyth, et al. v. HP Inc. and Hewlett Packard Enterprise. This is a purported class and collective action filed on August 18, 2016 in the United States District Court, Northern District of California, against HP and Hewlett Packard Enterprise alleging the defendants violated the Federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, California public policy and the California Business and Professions Code by terminating older workers and replacing them with younger workers. The operative complaint is the Fourth Amended Complaint, filed in July 2020. By their complaint, plaintiffs seek to represent (1) a putative nationwide ADEA collective comprised of all individuals 40 years of age and older who had their employment terminated pursuant to a WFR plan on or after December 9, 2014 or April 8, 2015, depending on state law; and (2) a putative Rule 23 class under California law comprised of all individuals 40 years of age and older who had their employment terminated in California pursuant to a WFR plan on or after August 18, 2012. Excluded from the putative collective and class are employees who (a) signed a Waiver and General Release Agreement at termination, or (b) signed an Agreement to Arbitrate Claims. A similar purported collective and class are proposed for Hewlett Packard

Enterprise, but the periods start on November 1, 2015. Plaintiffs seek monetary damages in the form of back and front pay and benefits, liquidated damages under the ADEA, punitive damages under the state law claims, an award of attorneys’ fees, and other relief. In December 2020, plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary certification of the putative nationwide ADEA collectives, and the Court granted this motion on April 13, 2021. As a result, potential members of the ADEA collectives will be notified of their right to opt into the case to join the current thirty-six named and opt-in plaintiffs.

India Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Proceedings. On April 30 and May 10, 2010, the India Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (the “DRI”) issued show cause notices to Hewlett-Packard India Sales Private Limited (“HP India”), a subsidiary of HP, seven HP India employees and one former HP India employee alleging that HP India underpaid customs duties while importing products and spare parts into India and seeking to recover an aggregate of approximately $370 million, plus penalties. Prior to the issuance of the show cause notices, HP India deposited approximately $16 million with the DRI and agreed to post a provisional bond in exchange for the DRI’s agreement to not seize HP India products and spare parts and to not interrupt the transaction of business by HP India.

On April 11, 2012, the Bangalore Commissioner of Customs issued an order on the products-related show cause notice affirming certain duties and penalties against HP India and the named individuals of approximately $386 million, of which HP India had already deposited $9 million. On December 11, 2012, HP India voluntarily deposited an additional $10 million in connection with the products-related show cause notice. The differential duty demand is subject to interest. On April 20, 2012, the Commissioner issued an order on the parts-related show cause notice affirming certain duties and penalties against HP India and certain of the named individuals of approximately $17 million, of which HP India had already deposited $7 million. After the order, HP India deposited an additional $3 million in connection with the parts-related show cause notice so as to avoid certain penalties.

HP India filed appeals of the Commissioner’s orders before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (the “Customs Tribunal”) along with applications for waiver of the pre-deposit of remaining demand amounts as a condition for hearing the appeals. The Customs Department has also filed cross-appeals before the Customs Tribunal. On January 24, 2013, the Customs Tribunal ordered HP India to deposit an additional $24 million against the products order, which HP India deposited in March 2013. The Customs Tribunal did not order any additional deposit to be made under the parts order. In December 2013, HP India filed applications before the Customs Tribunal seeking early hearing of the appeals as well as an extension of the stay of deposit as to HP India and the individuals already granted until final disposition of the appeals. On February 7, 2014, the application for extension of the stay of deposit was granted by the Customs Tribunal until disposal of the appeals. On October 27, 2014, the Customs Tribunal commenced hearings on the cross-appeals of the Commissioner’s orders. The Customs Tribunal rejected HP India’s request to remand the matter to the Commissioner on procedural grounds. The hearings scheduled to reconvene on April 6, 2015 and again on November 3, 2015 and April 11, 2016 were cancelled at the request of the Customs Tribunal. A hearing scheduled for January 15, 2019 was cancelled. On January 20, 2021, the Customs Tribunal held a virtual hearing during which the judge allowed HP’s application for a physical hearing on the merits as soon as practicable, which will be scheduled when physical hearings resume at court. Pursuant to the separation and distribution agreement, Hewlett Packard Enterprise has agreed to indemnify HP in part, based on the extent to which any liability arises from the products and spare parts of Hewlett Packard Enterprise’s businesses.

Slingshot Printing LLC Litigation. On June 11, 2019, Slingshot Printing LLC (“Slingshot”) filed three complaints in U.S. District Court in the Western District of Texas alleging HP infringes or has infringed sixteen patents. On September 20, 2019, Slingshot filed a fourth complaint and amended the three earlier complaints, alleging that HP infringes or has infringed thirty-two patents. On December 12, 2019, Slingshot voluntarily dismissed its allegations as to one patent because it did not own a related patent. On January 23, 2020, Slingshot filed a fifth complaint, re-asserting the dismissed patent as well as the related patent. On February 13, 2020, Slingshot voluntarily dismissed its allegations as to another patent, which was asserted in its third complaint. On March 25, 2020, Slingshot voluntarily dismissed its allegations as to an additional patent, which was also asserted in its third complaint. The five complaints assert a total of 31 patents and seek monetary damages. The accused products include inkjet printers, cartridges, and printheads. In December 2020, HP received notice that in September 2020, Slingshot filed two actions in China’s Guangzhou IP Specialized Court that had been removed to Guangdong High Court. The Guangzhou cases assert two patents related to patents in the U.S. litigation. On January 14, 2021, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board granted HP’s petitions to challenge the validity of four Slingshot patents and instituted inter partes review. On January 31, 2021, HP and Slingshot entered into an agreement to resolve all litigation. The U.S. civil actions have been dismissed and HP’s petitions have been terminated. Petitions for dismissal of the Guangzhou cases have been filed.

September 18, 2020, Philips filed a companion complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC”) pursuant to Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 against HP and 8 other sets of respondents. Both the district court complaint and the ITC complaint allege that certain digital video-capable devices and components thereof infringe four of Philips owned patents. On October 16, 2020, the ITC instituted an investigation. The ITC has scheduled an evidentiary trial for July 19, 2021 and is expected to render an initial determination on October 22, 2021, and a final decision on February 22, 2022. In the ITC proceeding, Philips seeks an order enjoining respondents from importing, or selling after importation, certain digital video-capable devices and components thereof, including certain PCs, display devices, and components thereof. In the district court action, Philips seeks unspecified damages and an injunction against HP, among other remedies.

Caltech Patent Litigation. On November 11, 2020, the California Institute of Technology (“Caltech”) filed a complaint against HP for patent infringement in the federal court for the Western District of Texas. On March 19, 2021, Caltech filed an amendment to this same complaint. The complaint as amended alleges infringement of five of Caltech’s patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 7,116,710; 7,421,032; 7,716,552; 7,916,781; and 8,284,833. The accused products are HP commercial and consumer PCs as well as wireless printers that comply with the IEEE 802.11n, 802.11ac, and/or 802.11ax standards. Caltech seeks unspecified damages and other relief.

In re HP Inc. Securities Litigation (Electrical Workers Pension Fund, Local 103, I.B.E.W. v. HP Inc., et al.). On February 19, 2020, Electrical Workers Pension Fund, Local 103, I.B.E.W. filed a putative class action complaint against HP, Dion Weisler, Catherine Lesjak, and Steven Fieler in U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California. On May 20, 2020, the court appointed the State of Rhode Island, Office of the General Treasurer, on behalf of the Employees’ Retirement System of Rhode Island and Iron Workers Local 580 Joint Funds as Lead Plaintiffs. On July 20, 2020, Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which additionally named as defendants Enrique Lores and Christoph Schell. On October 2, 2020, HP and the named officers filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. On March 19, 2021, the court granted HP’s motion to dismiss and granted plaintiffs leave to amend the complaint. On May 3, 2021, plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint, which no longer names Christoph Schell as a defendant. The second amended complaint alleges, among other things, that from February 23, 2017 to October 3, 2019, HP and the named officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by making false or misleading statements about HP’s printing supplies business, including alleged statements made about changes to HP’s channel inventory management and sales practices, and stabilization of printing supplies revenue. It further alleges that Dion Weisler and Enrique Lores violated Sections 10(b) and 20A of the Exchange Act by allegedly selling shares of HP common stock during this period while in possession of material, non-public adverse information about HP’s printing supplies business. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and other relief.

York County on behalf of the County of York Retirement Fund v. HP Inc., et al., and related proceedings. On November 5, 2020, York County, on behalf of the County of York Retirement Fund, filed a putative class action complaint against HP, Dion Weisler, and Catherine Lesjak in federal court in the Northern District of California. On February 11, 2021, the court appointed Maryland Electrical Industry Pension Fund as Lead Plaintiff. On April 21, 2021, Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint, which additionally names as defendants Enrique Lores and Richard Bailey. The complaint alleges, among other things, that from November 5, 2015 to June 21, 2016, HP and the named current and former officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by concealing material information and making false statements about HP’s printing supplies business, including information about HP’s channel inventory management and sales practices. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and other relief. On May 17, 2021, stockholder Scott Franklin filed a derivative complaint against certain current and former officers and directors in federal court in the District of Delaware. Plaintiff purports to bring the action on behalf of HP, which he has named as a nominal defendant, and it makes substantially the same factual allegations as in the York County securities complaint, bringing claims for breach of fiduciary duty and violations of securities laws. The derivative plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, governance reforms, and other relief.

Legal Proceedings re Authentication of Supplies. Civil litigation or government investigations are pending in the United States, Italy, Israel, and the Netherlands involving supplies authentication protocols used in certain HP printers. These protocols are often referred to as Dynamic Security. The core allegations in these proceedings claim misleading or inadequate consumer notifications and permissions pertaining to the use of Dynamic Security, the impact of firmware updates, or the potential inability of cartridges with clone chips or circuitry to work in HP printers with Dynamic Security.

123Inkt Foundation litigation (Netherlands). On November 23, 2016, a foundation known as Stichting 123Inkt-Huismerk Klanten (the “Foundation”) filed a complaint in district court in Amsterdam against HP Nederland B.V. and HP Inc. arising out of the use of Dynamic Security in certain OfficeJet printers. Digital Revolution B.V. (a.k.a. 123Inkt) established the Foundation to pursue the interests of approximately 960 of its customers who transferred their claims to it. The complaint alleges: (1) violation of right of ownership; (2) destruction and damage to property; (3) computer vandalism; (4) unlawful act;

(5) non-compliance; (6) unfair commercial practices; (7) misleading commercial practices; and (8) misleading advertising. The complaint seeks injunctive relief to prohibit use of Dynamic Security, damages, and attorneys’ fees. On December 27, 2017, the District Court dismissed the case and awarded fees to HP. On January 25, 2018, the Foundation filed a summons with the Amsterdam Court of Appeal to appeal. On December 17, 2019, the Court of Appeal set aside the judgment of the District Court, adopted a new decision declaring that HP provided inadequate and partially incorrect information to the Foundation members around September 13, 2016, awarded damages to them in an amount to be later determined, but denied all other claims, including injunctive relief, holding that the use of Dynamic Security is not inherently impermissible and the Foundation lacks legal interest to pursue such action. On March 19, 2020, the Foundation filed a cassation writ of summons with the Supreme Court of the Netherlands (Hoge Raad der Nederlanden) appealing the decision of the Court of Appeal. On May 29, 2020, HP filed its statement of defense and incidental appeal in cassation with the Supreme Court appealing the decision of the Court of Appeal. On October 30, 2020, the parties filed their opening briefs with the Supreme Court. The Attorney General will issue a non-binding opinion on June 25, 2021.

Gensin v. HP Inc. (Israel). On October 25, 2017, a purported consumer class action, captioned Gensin v. HP Inc., was filed in the District Court in Jerusalem against HP arising out of the use of Dynamic Security in certain OfficeJet printers. The petition and motion for certification as a class action alleges: (1) tortious wrongdoing in violation of the Computers Law, 5755-1995; (2) breach of Contracts Law, 5731-1970; (3) breach of the Consumer Protection Law, 5741-1981; (4) negligence; and (5) improper enrichment. The named petitioner initially sought to represent nationwide classes comprised of anyone who “owns an HP printer that has been blocked, disrupted, or interfered with by HP in the use of ink cartridges not manufactured by HP” or who “purchased ink cartridges not manufactured by HP for use in the blocked printers.” Plaintiff seeks class relief, injunctive relief, damages, and attorneys’ fees. On November 16, 2017, a second purported consumer class action was filed against HP in the Central District Court, captioned Dror v. HP, Inc., also arising out of the use of Dynamic Security in certain OfficeJet printers. The petition and motion allege similar causes of action on behalf of similar nationwide classes. After the Dror case was consolidated with the Gensin case in Jerusalem, the District Court on June 24, 2018 dismissed the Dror case and designated Gensin as the lead matter. On March 9, 2020, the petitioner moved to modify the proposed nationwide class to be comprised of “[a]ll persons who have an HP printer and whose printer was blocked or rendered unusable by HP with any ink cartridge that is not made by HP” and “[a]ll persons who purchased ink cartridges that are not made by HP, for use in the Blocked Printers.” On July 2, 2020, HP filed its response to the amended petition.

Parziale v. HP Inc. (United States). On August 27, 2019, a purported consumer class action was filed against HP in federal court in the Northern District of California arising out of the use of Dynamic Security in certain OfficeJet printers. The complaint alleges two causes of action under Florida Consumer Protection statutes: (1) violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, F.S.A. §§ 501.201 et seq., and (2) violation of the Florida Misleading Advertisement Law, F.S.A. §§ 817.41 et seq. The named plaintiff seeks to represent a nationwide class of “[a]ll United States Citizens who, between the applicable statute of limitations and the present, had an HP Printer that was modified to reject third party ink cartridges or refilled HP ink cartridges.” On November 13, 2019, plaintiff filed an amended complaint, adding three causes of action to the case: (1) violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030 et seq., (2) trespass to chattels, and (3) tortious interference with business relations. Plaintiff seeks class relief, injunctive relief, damages, including punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees. On December 30, 2019, HP moved to dismiss plaintiff’s amended complaint. On April 24, 2020, the Court granted in part and denied in part HP’s motion to dismiss. The Court dismissed plaintiff’s causes of action under the Florida Consumer Protection statutes, as well as the tortious interference with business relations claim and four of the five claims under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. The Court denied HP’s motion to dismiss on the remaining claims and on the request for injunctive relief and granted plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. On June 5, 2020, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on behalf of both a nationwide class and a Florida subclass alleging violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and trespass to chattels. Plaintiff sought class relief, injunctive relief, damages, including punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees. On September 29, 2020, the Court granted HP’s motion to dismiss, dismissing the case in full with prejudice. Plaintiff appealed, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has scheduled oral argument for July 29, 2021.

Consumer Protection Investigation (Italy). On September 26, 2019, the Italian Competition Authority (Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato) (“AGCM”) served a Notice of Initiation of Proceedings on HP concerning the investigation of alleged aggressive practices involving undue influence on consumers and alleged misleading actions and omissions regarding the restriction or prevention of the use of third-party ink cartridges in HP printers, accompanied by a request for information. HP submitted its reply to the AGCM’s request for information on November 15, 2019 and has addressed subsequent requests for information. On May 22, 2020, the AGCM gave notice that it intended to expand its investigation into certain alleged warranty practices regarding the use of third-party cartridges. On June 26, 2020, HP submitted its response to the warranty

allegations. On December 7, 2020, the AGCM notified HP of the AGCM’s final decision finding that HP engaged in two unfair commercial practices as follows: (a) the information HP provided to consumers about limitations on the use of certain third-party cartridges in HP printers was allegedly misleading pursuant to Articles 20, 21 and 22 of the Italian Consumer Code, and (b) the alleged use of data to deny warranty coverage and certain alleged data collection practices were aggressive pursuant to Articles 20, 24 and 25 of the Italian Consumer Code. The final decision (i) orders HP to end the allegedly unfair commercial practices; (ii) fines HP €5 million for each alleged unfair practice (total €10 million); (iii) requires HP to file a compliance report within 60 days; (iv) orders HP to publicly publish a corrective statement within 120 days; and (v) orders HP to amend the packaging of its printers within 120 days. On December 21, 2020, HP paid the imposed fines. On February 5, 2021, HP filed an appeal. On April 6, 2021, HP filed its compliance report.

Digital Revolution B.V. v. HP Nederland B.V., et al. (Netherlands). On March 30, 2020, Digital Revolution B.V. (a.k.a. 123Inkt) served a complaint filed in Amsterdam District Court arising out of the use of Dynamic Security in certain HP printers. The complaint alleges several causes of action: (1) abuse of dominant position; (2) misleading advertising; (3) unfair and misleading commercial practice; and (4) misleading comparative advertising. The complaint seeks injunctive relief, including prohibition of Dynamic Security and disclosure of cartridge authentication protocols, damages, and attorneys’ fees. The parties’ initial appearance in front of the Court took place on July 8, 2020. On September 9, 2020, HP filed its defense and a counterclaim for unfair commercial practices and misleading and unlawful comparative advertising against Digital Revolution B.V. An oral hearing is scheduled for September 13, 2021.

Mobile Emergency Housing Corp., et al. v. HP, Inc. (United States). On December 17, 2020, a putative consumer class action was filed against HP in federal court in the Northern District of California arising out of the use of Dynamic Security firmware updates. The complaint alleges seven claims under federal and California law: (1) violation of the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”) for allegedly causing “damage without authorization” to the plaintiffs’ printers; (2) violation of the California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act (“CDAFA”); (3) violation of the California False Advertising Law (“FAL”); (4) violation of the “fraudulent” prong of the California Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”); (5) violation of the “unfair” prong of the UCL; (6) violation of the “unlawful” prong of the UCL; and (7) trespass to chattels. Plaintiffs seek to represent a nationwide injunctive-relief class of “all persons in the United States who own a Class Printer” and a monetary relief subclass of those who experienced an error message due to third-party cartridge incompatibility resulting from a firmware update, defining “Class Printers” to include the “HP Color LaserJet Pro M254, HP Color LaserJet Pro MFP M280, HP Color LaserJet Pro MFP M281, and all other models affected” by the firmware updates described in the complaint. On February 10, 2021, HP filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, and in response, on March 2, 2021, plaintiffs amended their complaint. The amended complaint added an additional named plaintiff, a California state consumer subclass, and a California Consumers Legal Remedies Act claim seeking injunctive relief on behalf of the new plaintiff and the state consumer subclass. Plaintiffs subsequently filed Second and Third Amended Complaints respectively on March 19 and April 8, 2021. The Third Amended Complaint adds allegations pertaining to data collection—specifically, that HP allegedly collected data on the type of third-party cartridges that Plaintiffs used on their printers without their knowledge, in violation of the FAL and UCL and in a manner giving rise to a trespass of chattels. The Third Amended Complaint also pleads new claims under the CFAA and CDAFA based on these data collection allegations, as well as a new claim under the CDAFA based on the theory that HP lacked authorization to issue the firmware updates at issue. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, restitution, injunctive relief against alleged unfair business practices, and other relief. On May 24, 2021, HP filed a motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint.

Investigations. As a result of the findings of an ongoing investigation, HP has provided information to the U.K. Serious Fraud Office, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and the SEC related to the accounting improprieties, disclosure failures and misrepresentations at Autonomy that occurred prior to and in connection with HP’s acquisition of Autonomy. On January 19, 2015, the U.K. Serious Fraud Office notified HP that it was closing its investigation and had decided to cede jurisdiction of the investigation to the U.S. authorities. On November 14, 2016, the DOJ announced that a federal grand jury indicted Sushovan Hussain, the former CFO of Autonomy. Mr. Hussain was charged with conspiracy to commit wire fraud, securities fraud, and multiple counts of wire fraud. The indictment alleged that Mr. Hussain engaged in a scheme to defraud purchasers and sellers of securities of Autonomy and HP about the true performance of Autonomy’s business, its financial condition, and its prospects for growth. A jury trial commenced on February 26, 2018. On April 30, 2018, the jury found Mr. Hussain guilty of all charges against him. On August 26, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the judgment of conviction against Mr. Hussain. On November 15, 2016, the SEC announced that Stouffer Egan, the former CEO of Autonomy’s U.S.-based operations, settled charges relating to his participation in an accounting scheme to meet internal sales

Autonomy Corporation Limited v. Michael Lynch and Sushovan Hussain. On April 17, 2015, four former HP subsidiaries that became subsidiaries of Hewlett Packard Enterprise at the time of the Separation (Autonomy Corporation Limited, Hewlett Packard Vision BV, Autonomy Systems, Limited, and Autonomy, Inc.) initiated civil proceedings in the U.K. High Court of Justice against two members of Autonomy’s former management, Michael Lynch and Sushovan Hussain. The Particulars of Claim seek damages in excess of $5 billion from Messrs. Lynch and Hussain for breach of their fiduciary duties by causing Autonomy group companies to engage in improper transactions and accounting practices. On October 1, 2015, Messrs. Lynch and Hussain filed their defenses. Mr. Lynch also filed a counterclaim against Autonomy Corporation Limited seeking $160 million in damages, among other things, for alleged misstatements regarding Lynch. The Hewlett Packard Enterprise subsidiary claimants filed their replies to the defenses and the asserted counter-claim on March 11, 2016. Trial began on March 25, 2019 and was completed in January 2020. The parties are awaiting a ruling from the Court.

HP’s business is subject to various federal, state, local and foreign laws and regulations that could result in costs or other sanctions that adversely affect our business and results of operations. For example, HP is subject to laws and regulations concerning environmental protection, including laws addressing the discharge of pollutants into the air and water, the management and disposal of hazardous substances and wastes, the clean-up of contaminated sites, the content of HP’s products and the recycling, treatment and disposal of those products, including batteries. In particular, HP faces increasing complexity in its product design and procurement operations as it adjusts to new and future requirements relating to the chemical and materials composition of its products, their safe use, the energy consumption associated with those products, climate change laws and regulations, and product repairability, reuse and take-back legislation. HP could incur substantial costs, its products could be restricted from entering certain jurisdictions, and it could face other sanctions, if it were to violate or become liable under environmental laws or if its products become noncompliant with environmental laws. HP’s potential exposure includes fines and civil or criminal sanctions, third-party property damage or personal injury claims and clean-up costs. The amount and timing of costs to comply with environmental laws are difficult to predict.

HP is party to, or otherwise involved in, proceedings brought by U.S. or state environmental agencies under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), known as “Superfund,” or state laws similar to CERCLA, and may become a party to, or otherwise involved in, proceedings brought by private parties for contribution towards clean-up costs. HP is also conducting environmental investigations or remediations at several current or former operating sites pursuant to administrative orders or consent agreements with state environmental agencies.

The separation and distribution agreement between HP and Hewlett Packard Enterprise includes provisions that provide for the allocation of environmental liabilities including certain remediation obligations; responsibilities arising from the chemical and materials composition of their respective products, their safe use and their energy consumption; obligations under product take back legislation that addresses the collection, recycling, treatment and disposal of products; and other environmental matters. HP will generally be responsible for environmental liabilities related to the properties and other assets, including products, allocated to HP under the separation and distribution agreement and other ancillary agreements. Under these agreements, HP will indemnify Hewlett Packard Enterprise for liabilities for specified ongoing remediation projects, subject to certain limitations, and Hewlett Packard Enterprise has a payment obligation for a specified portion of the cost of those remediation projects. In addition, HP will share with Hewlett Packard Enterprise other environmental liabilities as set forth in the separation and distribution agreement. HP is indemnified in whole or in part by Hewlett Packard Enterprise for liabilities arising from the assets assigned to Hewlett Packard Enterprise and for certain environmental matters as detailed in the separation and distribution agreement.