5. Summarize the information provided in the section of Note 10 titled Unconditional Purchase Obligations'. Is there a liability in the balance sheet (statement of financial position) for $8,184 (in millions)? If not, why is this note included? 6. Read the 5 paragraphs under 'Contingencies' in the continuation of Note 10. Why is this note provided? How does the company react when litigation goes against the company? If you were an investor in Apple, would you be worried after reading this note? Are you concerned about the 1.1 billion (euro) fine levied by the FCA? Note 10- Commitments and Contingencies Accrued Warranty and Guarantees The following table shows changes in the Company's accrued warranties and related costs for 2021, 2020 and 2019 (in millions): $ Beginning accrued warranty and related costs Cost of warranty claims Accruals for product warranty Ending accrued warranty and related costs 2021 3,354 5 (2,674) 2,684 3,364 $ 2020 3,570 $ (2,956) 2.740 3,354 $ 2019 3,692 (3.857) 3,735 3,570 s Unconditional Purchase Obligations The Company has entered into certain off-balance sheet commitments that require the future purchase of goods or services (unconditional purchase obligations"). The Company's unconditional purchase obligations primarily consist of payments for content creation, Internet and telecommunications services and supplier arrangements. Future payments under noncancelable unconditional purchase obligations having a remaining term in excess of one year as of Septomber 25, 2021, are as follows (in millions): 2022 4,551 2023 2,165 2024 984 2025 405 2026 51 Thereafter 28 Total 8.184 Continuation of Note 10 - Commitments and Contingencies Contingencies The Company is subject to various legal proceedings and claims that have arisen in the ordinary course of business and that have not been fully resolved. The outcome of litigation is inherently uncertain. When a loss related to a legal proceeding or claim is probable and reasonably estimable, the Company accrues its best estimate for the ultimate resolution of the matter. If one or more legal matters were resolved against the Company in a reporting period for amounts above management's expectations, the Company's financial condition and operating results for that reporting period could be materially adversely affected. In the opinion of management, there was not at least a reasonable possibility the Company may have incurred a material loss, or a material loss greater than a recorded accrual, concerning loss contingencies for asserted legal and other claims, except for the following matters: Vimnet Vimotx, Inc. (VimetX") filed a lawsuit against the Company alleging that certain of the Company's products infringe on patents owned by Vinetx. On April 11, 2018. a jury returned a verdict against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastem District of Texas (the "Eastern Texas District Court). The Company appealed the verdict to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which remanded the case back to the Eastern Texas District Court, where a retrial was held in October 2020. The jury retumed a verdict against the Company and awarded damages of $503 milion, which the Company has appealed. The Company has challenged the validity of the patents at issue in the retral at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (the "PTO"). and the PTO has declared the patents invalid, subject to further appeal by Vimex ios Performance Management Cases On April 5, 2018, several U.S.federal actions alleging violation of consumer protection laws, fraud computer intrusion and other causes of action related to the Company's performance management feature used in its iPhone operating systems, introduced to certain iPhones in iOS updates 10.2.1 and 11.2 were consolidated through a Multidistrict Litigation process into a single action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Califomia (the Northern Califomia District Court. On February 28, 2020, the parties in the Multidistrict Litigation reached a settlement to resolve the U.S. federal and Califomia state class actions. On March 18, 2021, the Northern California District Court granted final approval of the Multidistrict Litigation settlement, which will result in an aggregate payment of $310 million to settle all claims. The Company continues to berieve that its iPhones were not detective, that the performance management feature introduced with iOS updates 1021 and 112 was intended to and did, improve customers' user experience, and that the Company did not make any misleading statements or fail to disclose any material information French Competition Authority On March 16, 2020, the French Competition Authority (FCA) announced is decision that aspects of the Company's sales and distribution practices in France violate French competition law, and issued a fine of 1.1 billion. The Company strongly disagrees with the FCA's decision, and has appealed Optis Optis Wireless Technology, LLC and related entities (Optis) lled a lawsuit in the US. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas against the Company alleging that certain of the Company's products infringe on patents owned by Optis. On August 11, 2020, a jury retumed a verdict against the Company and awarded damages. In post-trial proceedings, the damages portion of the verdict was set aside. A retrial on damages was held in August 2021 and the jury in that proceeding awarded damages of $300 million against the Company, which the Company plans to appeal