NETGEAR, INC.

Previous wording

If we are unable to properly monitor and optimize our channel partners' inventory levels and maintain an appropriate level and mix of products with our retail partners and wholesale distributors and within our sales channels, we may incur increased and unexpected costs associated with this inventory. In 2022 and the first half of 2023, many of our retail and service provider partners began significantly reducing their target inventory levels which adversely affected our results of operations. While we believe our channel partners' current inventory targets are at reasonable levels, the uncertain macroeconomic and geopolitical environment and high inflation and interest rates could change our partners' desired inventory targets. In the past, we have experienced lower revenue as a result of our channel partners lowering their inventory levels and higher cost of carrying excess channel inventory. On the other hand, low channel inventory levels increase the likelihood that our sales channel customers may not be able to fulfill end user demand, leading to delayed or lost sales, unhappy customers and potential impacts to our brand and reputation. Inadequate stock levels could also hinder our ability to fulfill large orders or take advantage of unexpected demand spikes, thereby limiting revenue growth opportunities. Moreover, reductions in target inventory levels put pressure on our ability to accurately forecast customer demand and inventory requirements and increases the likelihood that the accuracy of such forecasts would be lower. We determine production levels based on our forecasts of demand for our products. Actual demand for our products depends on many factors, which makes it difficult to forecast. We have experienced differences between our actual and our forecasted demand in the past and expect differences to arise in the future. If we improperly forecast demand for our products and channel inventory levels, we could end up with too many products and be unable to sell the excess inventory in a timely manner, if at all, or, alternatively we could end up with too few products and not be able to satisfy demand. This problem is exacerbated because we attempt to closely match inventory levels with product demand leaving limited margin for error. Also, during the transition from an existing product to a new replacement product, we must accurately predict the demand for the existing and the new product. If we improperly forecast demand for our products and channel inventory levels, we could incur increased expenses associated with writing off excessive or obsolete inventory, lose sales, incur penalties for late delivery or have to ship products by air freight to meet immediate demand incurring incremental freight costs above the sea freight costs and suffering a corresponding decline in gross margins. For example, when demand for our products turns out to be lower than we previously forecasted, it results in our revenue for our products to come in l…

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Current wording

If we are unable to properly monitor and optimize our channel partners' inventory levels and maintain an appropriate level and mix of products with our retail partners and wholesale distributors and within our sales channels, we may incur increased and unexpected costs associated with this inventory. In 2022 and the first half of 2023, many of our retail and service provider partners began significantly reducing their target inventory levels which adversely affected our results of operations. While we believe our channel partners' current inventory targets are at reasonable levels, the uncertain macroeconomic and geopolitical environment and high inflation and interest rates could change our partners' desired inventory targets. In the past, we have experienced lower revenue as a result of our channel partners lowering their inventory levels and higher cost of carrying excess channel inventory. On the other hand, low channel inventory levels increase the likelihood that our sales channel customers may not be able to fulfill end user demand, leading to delayed or lost sales, unhappy customers and potential impacts to our brand and reputation. Inadequate stock levels could also hinder our ability to fulfill large orders or take advantage of unexpected demand spikes, thereby limiting revenue growth opportunities. Moreover, reductions in target inventory levels put pressure on our ability to accurately forecast customer demand and inventory requirements and increases the likelihood that the accuracy of such forecasts would be lower. We determine production levels based on our forecasts of demand for our products. Actual demand for our products depends on many factors, which makes it difficult to forecast. We have experienced differences between our actual and our forecasted demand in the past and expect differences to arise in the future. If we improperly forecast demand for our products and channel inventory levels, we could end up with too many products and be unable to sell the excess inventory in a timely manner, if at all, or, alternatively we could end up with too few products and not be able to satisfy demand. This problem is exacerbated because we attempt to closely match inventory levels with product demand leaving limited margin for error. Also, during the transition from an existing product to a new replacement product, we must accurately predict the demand for the existing and the new product. If we improperly forecast demand for our products and channel inventory levels, we could incur increased expenses associated with writing off excess or obsolete inventory, lose sales, incur penalties for late delivery or have to ship products by air freight to meet immediate demand incurring incremental freight costs above the sea freight costs and suffering a corresponding decline in gross margins. For example, when demand for our products turns out to be lower than we previously forecasted, it results in our revenue for our products to come in lowe…

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Previous wording

We compete in a rapidly evolving and fiercely competitive market, and we expect competition to continue to be intense, including price competition. Our principal competitors in the consumer market include ARRIS, ASUS, D-Link, Eero (owned by Amazon), and TP-Link. Our principal competitors in the business market include Arista, Cisco Systems, D-Link, Extreme Networks, Fortinet, Haiwei, Hewlett-Packard Enterprise, Ruckus Networks, TP-Link, and Ubiquiti. Our principal competitors in the service provider market include Compal, Franklin, Huawei, Inseego, Nokia, Orbic, Sonim, TP-Link, and ZTE. Other competitors include numerous local vendors such as Xiaomi in China, AVM in Germany and Buffalo in Japan. In addition, these local vendors may target markets outside of their local regions and may increasingly compete with us in other regions worldwide. Our potential competitors also include other consumer electronics vendors, including Apple, LG Electronics, Microsoft, Panasonic, Sony, Toshiba and Vizio, who could integrate networking and streaming capabilities into their line of products, such as televisions, set top boxes and gaming consoles, and our channel customers who may decide to offer self-branded networking products. We also face competition from service providers who may bundle a free networking device with their broadband service offering, which would reduce our sales if we were not the supplier of choice to those service providers. In the service provider space, we also face significant and increased competition from original design manufacturers, or ODMs, and contract manufacturers who sell and attempt to sell their products directly to service providers around the world.

Current wording

We compete in a rapidly evolving and fiercely competitive market, and we expect competition to continue to be intense, including price competition. Our principal competitors in the consumer market include ARRIS, ASUS, D-Link, Eero (owned by Amazon), and TP-Link. Our principal competitors in the business market include Arista, Cisco Systems, D-Link, Extreme Networks, Fortinet, Huawei, Hewlett-Packard Enterprise, Ruckus Networks, TP-Link, and Ubiquiti. Our principal competitors in the service provider market include Compal, Franklin, Huawei, Inseego, Nokia, Orbic, Sonim, TP-Link, and ZTE. Other competitors include numerous local vendors such as Xiaomi in China, AVM in Germany and Buffalo in Japan. In addition, these local vendors may target markets outside of their local regions and may increasingly compete with us in other regions worldwide. Our potential competitors also include other consumer electronics vendors, including Apple, LG Electronics, Microsoft, Panasonic, Sony, Toshiba and Vizio, who could integrate networking and streaming capabilities into their line of products, such as televisions, set top boxes and gaming consoles, and our channel customers who may decide to offer self-branded networking products. We also face competition from service providers who may bundle a free networking device with their broadband service offering, which would reduce our sales if we were not the supplier of choice to those service providers. In the service provider space, we also face significant and increased competition from original design manufacturers, or ODMs, and contract manufacturers who sell and attempt to sell their products directly to service providers around the world.

Previous wording

All of our products must satisfy safety and regulatory standards and some of our products must also receive government certifications. Our third-party manufacturers are primarily responsible for conducting the tests that support our applications for most regulatory approvals for our products. If our third-party manufacturers fail to timely and accurately conduct these tests, we would be unable to obtain the necessary domestic or foreign regulatory approvals or certificates to sell our products in certain jurisdictions. As a result, we would be unable to sell our products and our sales and profitability could be reduced, our relationships with our sales channel could be harmed, and our reputation and brand would suffer.

Current wording

All of our products must satisfy safety and regulatory standards and some of our products must also receive government certifications. Our third-party manufacturers are primarily responsible for conducting the tests that support our applications for most regulatory approvals for our products. If our third-party manufacturers fail to timely and accurately conduct these tests, we would be unable to obtain the necessary domestic or foreign regulatory approvals or certificates to sell our products in certain jurisdictions.

Previous wording

International sales comprise a significant amount of our overall net revenue. International sales were approximately 35% of overall net revenue in the first fiscal quarter of fiscal 2026 and 34% of overall net revenue in fiscal 2025. We continue to be committed to growing our international sales, and while we have committed resources to expanding our international operations and sales channels, these efforts may not be successful. For example, in fiscal 2022 we experienced the strengthening of the U.S. dollar, which had a meaningful negative impact on our international revenue and our profitability.

Current wording

International sales comprise a significant amount of our overall net revenue. International sales were approximately 33% of overall net revenue in the second fiscal quarter of fiscal 2026 and 34% of overall net revenue in fiscal 2025. We continue to be committed to growing our international sales, and while we have committed resources to expanding our international operations and sales channels, these efforts may not be successful. For example, in fiscal 2022 we experienced the strengthening of the U.S. dollar, which had a meaningful negative impact on our international revenue and our profitability.

Previous wording

In the United States, federal, state, and local governments have enacted numerous data privacy and security laws, including data breach notification laws, personal data privacy laws, consumer protection laws and other similar laws (such as wiretapping laws). Certain US states have enacted comprehensive consumer privacy laws that impose significant and costly obligations on covered businesses, including providing specific disclosures in privacy notices and affording residents with certain rights concerning their personal data. As applicable, such rights may include the right to access, correct, or delete certain personal data, and to opt-out of certain data processing activities, such as targeted advertising, profiling, and automated decision-making. The exercise of these rights may impact our business and ability to provide our products and services. Certain states also impose stricter requirements for processing certain personal data, including sensitive information, such as conducting data privacy impact assessments. These state laws allow for statutory fines for noncompliance. For example, the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (“CCPA”) applies to personal data of consumers, business representatives, and employees who are California residents, and requires businesses subject to the law to provide specific disclosures in privacy notices and respond to requests of such individuals to exercise certain privacy rights. The CCPA provides for fines and allows private litigants affected by certain data breaches to recover significant statutory damages. Outside the United States, an increasing number of laws, regulations and industry standards govern data privacy and security. For example, the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (“EU GDPR”) and the United Kingdom’s GDPR (“UK GDPR”) (collectively, “GDPR”), Australia’s Privacy Act, and Canada's Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (“PIPEDA”) (as well as various related provincial laws) impose strict requirements for processing personal data. For example, under the GDPR, companies may face temporary or definitive bans on data processing and other corrective actions; fines of up to 20 million Euros under the EU GDPR, 17.5 million pounds sterling under the UK GDPR or, in each case, 4% of annual global revenue, whichever is greater; or private litigation related to processing of personal data brought by classes of data subjects or consumer protection organizations authorized at law to represent their interests. In Europe, the Network and Information Security Directive (“NIS2”) regulates resilience and incident response capabilities of entities operating in a number of sectors. Non-compliance with NIS2 may lead up to administrative fines of a maximum of 10 million Euros or up to 2% of the total worldwide revenue of the preceding fiscal year.

Current wording

In the United States, federal, state, and local governments have enacted numerous data privacy and security laws, including data breach notification laws, personal data privacy laws, consumer protection laws and other similar laws (such as wiretapping laws). Certain US states have enacted comprehensive consumer privacy laws that impose significant and costly obligations on covered businesses, including providing specific disclosures in privacy notices and affording residents with certain rights concerning their personal data. As applicable, such rights may include the right to access, correct, or delete certain personal data, and to opt-out of certain data processing activities, such as targeted advertising, profiling, and automated decision-making. The exercise of these rights may impact our business and ability to provide our products and services. Certain states also impose stricter requirements for processing certain personal data, including sensitive information, such as conducting data privacy impact assessments. These state laws allow for statutory fines for noncompliance. For example, the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (“CCPA”) applies to personal data of consumers, business representatives, and employees who are California residents, and requires businesses subject to the law to provide specific disclosures in privacy notices and respond to requests of such individuals to exercise certain privacy rights. The CCPA provides for fines and allows private litigants affected by certain data breaches to recover significant statutory damages. Outside the United States, an increasing number of laws, regulations and industry standards govern data privacy and security. For example, the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (“EU GDPR”) and the United Kingdom’s GDPR (“UK GDPR”) (collectively, “GDPR”), Australia’s Privacy Act, and Canada's Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (“PIPEDA”) (as well as various related provincial laws) impose strict requirements for processing personal data. For example, under the GDPR, companies may face temporary or definitive bans on data processing and other corrective actions; fines of up to 20 million Euros under the EU GDPR, 17.5 million pounds sterling under the UK GDPR or, in each case, 4% of annual global revenue, whichever is greater; or private litigation related to processing of personal data brought by classes of data subjects or consumer protection organizations authorized at law to represent their interests. In Europe, the Network and Information Security

Previous wording

We have embarked on an AI transformation effort to take full advantage of automation, artificial intelligence, machine learning and other technologies to drive efficiencies and improve productivity within our Company and to develop and improve our products, services and customer experiences. As we increase our investment in technology, software and systems to support this transformation effort, such investments may not increase productivity, result in more efficient operations or deliver better products, services and customer experiences. In addition, the evolution of these technologies may create unforeseen competitive pressures or cause disruption or delays to our operations, which may harm our business. Our competitors may incorporate AI technologies into their products and services more quickly or more successfully than us and could impair our ability to compete effectively and adversely affect our results of operations. Further, the rapid evolution of AI may require the dedication of significant resources to develop, test and maintain AI technologies. If our incorporation of AI technologies does not increase our operational efficiency in accordance with our expectations, or if competition increases for the technology and services provided by third parties, our business, results of operations and financial condition may be harmed. While we have established an AI transformation leadership team to coordinate and oversee our approach to AI adoption, the legal and regulatory landscape surrounding generative AI technologies is rapidly evolving and uncertain, including in the areas of intellectual property, discrimination, cybersecurity, privacy and data protection. Compliance with existing, new, and changing laws, regulations, and industry standards relating to AI may limit some uses of AI, impose significant operational costs, and limit our ability to develop, deploy, or use AI technologies. Further, the continued integration of any AI technologies into our products and services may result in new or enhanced governmental or regulatory scrutiny. Failure to appropriately respond to this evolving landscape may result in legal liability, regulatory action, or brand and reputational harm.

Current wording

We have embarked on an AI transformation effort to take full advantage of automation, artificial intelligence, machine learning and other technologies to drive efficiencies and improve productivity within our Company and to develop and improve our products, services and customer experiences. As we increase our investment in technology, software and systems to support this transformation effort, such investments may not increase productivity, result in more efficient operations or deliver better products, services and customer experiences. In addition, the evolution of these technologies may create unforeseen competitive pressures or cause disruption or delays to our operations, which may harm our business. Our competitors may incorporate AI technologies into their products and services more quickly or more successfully than us and could impair our ability to compete effectively and adversely affect our results of operations. Further, the rapid evolution of AI may require the dedication of significant resources to develop, test and maintain AI technologies. If our incorporation of AI technologies does not increase our operational efficiency in accordance with our expectations, or if competition increases for the technology and services provided by third parties, our business, results of operations and financial condition may be harmed. While we have established an AI transformation leadership team to coordinate and oversee our approach to AI adoption, the legal and regulatory landscape surrounding generative AI technologies is rapidly evolving and uncertain, including in the areas of intellectual property, discrimination, cybersecurity, privacy and data protection.

Previous wording

We are subject to income taxes in the United States and numerous foreign jurisdictions. Our effective tax rate has fluctuated in the past and may fluctuate in the future. Future effective tax rates could be affected by changes in the composition of earnings in countries with differing tax rates, changes in deferred tax assets and liabilities, or changes in tax laws. Foreign jurisdictions have increased the volume of tax audits of multinational corporations. Further, many countries continue to consider changes in their tax laws by implementing new taxes such as the digital service tax and initiatives such as the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD) Pillar II global minimum tax. More than 140 countries agreed to enact the Pillar II global minimum tax. While the OECD issued a framework model, many countries have enacted their own laws to incorporate Pillar II while certain countries, most notably the United States have not incorporated Pillar II into law. While Pillar II is a global model, the country by country enactment of different laws to incorporate the framework is complex and there is uncertainty as to how the enactment of these laws will impact the Company. These changes could increase our total tax burden in the future. In addition, the acceleration of employee mobility as a result of the pandemic potentially increases the jurisdictional tax risk of our workforce. Changes in tax laws could affect the distribution of our earnings, result in double taxation and adversely affect our results.

Current wording

We are subject to income taxes in the United States and numerous foreign jurisdictions. Our effective tax rate has fluctuated in the past and may fluctuate in the future. Future effective tax rates could be affected by changes in the composition of earnings in countries with differing tax rates, changes in deferred tax assets and liabilities, or changes in tax laws. Foreign jurisdictions have increased the volume of tax audits of multinational corporations. Further, many countries continue to consider changes in their tax laws by implementing new taxes such as the digital service tax and initiatives such as the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD) Pillar Two global minimum tax. More than 140 countries agreed to enact the Pillar Two global minimum tax. While the OECD issued a framework model, many countries have enacted their own laws to incorporate Pillar Two while certain countries, most notably the United States have not incorporated Pillar Two into law. While Pillar Two is a global model, the country by country enactment of different laws to incorporate the framework is complex and there is uncertainty as to how the enactment of these laws will impact the Company. These changes could increase our total tax burden in the future. In addition, the acceleration of employee mobility as a result of the pandemic potentially increases the jurisdictional tax risk of our workforce. Changes in tax laws could affect the distribution of our earnings, result in double taxation and adversely affect our results.

Previous wording

We have been audited by the Italy Tax Authority (“ITA”) for the 2004 through 2012 tax years. The ITA examination included an audit of income, gross receipts and value-added taxes. We have been in litigation with the ITA for the 2004 through 2012 years. This litigation was appealed by the ITA to the Italian Supreme Court. Our hearing on all years at the Italian Supreme Court was held on March 6, 2024. Decisions were issued in the Company’s favor for the 2007 through 2012 tax years. In the fourth quarter of 2025, the Italian Tax Court upheld the Company’s appeal with respect to the 2004 through 2006 tax years and annulled the related ITA tax assessments. On March 24, 2026, the Italian Revenue Agency filed an appeal before the Italian Supreme Court challenging the favorable decisions issued by the Second Level Tax Court of Milan with respect to the 2004, 2005, and 2006 tax years. If we are unsuccessful in defending our tax positions for the remaining years, our profitability will be reduced.

Current wording

We have been audited by the Italy Tax Authority (“ITA”) for the 2004 through 2012 tax years. The ITA examination included an audit of income, gross receipts and value-added taxes. We have been in litigation with the ITA for the 2004 through 2012 years. This litigation was appealed by the ITA to the Italian Supreme Court. Our hearing on all years at the Italian Supreme Court was held on March 6, 2024. Decisions were issued in the Company’s favor for the 2007 through 2012 tax years. In the fourth quarter of 2025, the Italian Tax Court upheld the Company’s appeal with respect to the 2004 through 2006 tax years and annulled the related ITA tax assessments. On March 24, 2026, the Italian Revenue Agency filed an appeal before the Italian Supreme Court challenging the favorable decisions issued by the Second Level Tax Court of Milan for the 2004, 2005, and 2006 tax year. We timely filed the counter briefs with the Supreme Court in late April 2026. The 2004 through 2006 tax years remain pending before the Supreme Court and have not been fully resolved. If we are unsuccessful in defending our tax positions for the remaining years, our profitability will be reduced.

Previous wording

We are also subject to examination by other tax authorities, including state revenue agencies and other foreign governments. The Company was recently notified that the Internal Revenue Service has commenced an examination of the 2023 tax year. The examination is in its preliminary stages, and the Company is unable to predict the outcome or estimate the range of any potential adjustment at this time. While we regularly assess the likelihood of favorable or unfavorable outcomes resulting from examinations by the IRS and other tax authorities to determine the adequacy of our provision for income taxes, there can be no assurance that the actual outcome resulting from these examinations will not materially adversely affect our financial condition and operating results. Additionally, the IRS and several foreign tax authorities have increasingly focused attention on intercompany transfer pricing with respect to sales of products and services and the use of intangible assets. Tax authorities could disagree with our intercompany charges, cross-jurisdictional transfer pricing or other matters and assess additional taxes. If we do not prevail in any such disagreements, our profitability may be affected.

Current wording

We are also subject to examination by other tax authorities, including state revenue agencies and other foreign governments. We are currently under examination by the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) for the 2023 tax year. The examination is ongoing, and we are unable to predict the outcome or estimate the range of any potential adjustments at this time. While we regularly assess the likelihood of favorable or unfavorable outcomes resulting from examinations by the IRS and other tax authorities to determine the adequacy of our provision for income taxes, there can be no assurance that the actual outcome resulting from these examinations will not materially adversely affect our financial condition and operating results. Additionally, the IRS and several foreign tax authorities have increasingly focused attention on intercompany transfer pricing with respect to sales of products and services and the use of intangible assets. Tax authorities could disagree with our intercompany charges, cross-jurisdictional transfer pricing or other matters and assess additional taxes. If we do not prevail in any such disagreements, our profitability may be affected.

Previous wording

One area which has a large number of evolving and developing regulations is environmental compliance. Management of environmental pollution, climate change and other ESG considerations has produced significant legislative and regulatory efforts on a global basis, and we believe this will continue both in scope and the number of countries participating. These changes could directly increase the cost of energy which may have an impact on the way we manufacture products or utilize energy to produce our products. In addition, any new regulations or laws in the environmental area might increase the cost of raw materials we use in our products. Environmental regulations require us to reduce product energy usage, monitor and exclude an expanding list of restricted substances and to participate in required recover and recycling of our products. While future changes in regulations are certain, we are currently unable to predict how any such changes will impact us and if such impacts will be material to our business. If there is a new law or regulation, or a new interpretation and application of existing laws, that significantly increases our costs of manufacturing or causes us to significantly alter the way that we manufacture our products, this would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Current wording

Environmental regulations require us to reduce product energy usage, monitor and exclude an expanding list of restricted substances and to participate in required recover and recycling of our products. While future changes in regulations are certain, we are currently unable to predict how any such changes will impact us and if such impacts will be material to our business. If there is a new law or regulation, or a new interpretation and application of existing laws, that significantly increases our costs of manufacturing or causes us to significantly alter the way that we manufacture our products, this would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.