Adaptive Biotechnologies (ADPT) Risk Analysis

Our amended and restated articles of incorporation ("Articles of Incorporation") and our amended and restated bylaws ("Bylaws"), as well as Washington law, contain provisions that may have the effect of deterring takeovers or delaying or preventing a change in control of us or changes in our management that a shareholder might deem to be in his or her best interest. Our Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws contain provisions that: - authorize "blank check" preferred stock, which could be issued by our board of directors without shareholder approval and may contain voting, liquidation, dividend and other rights superior to our common stock;- create a classified board of directors whose members serve staggered three-year terms, with one class being elected each year by our shareholders;- specify that special meetings of our shareholders can be called only by our board of directors, the Chairperson of our board of directors, our chief executive officer or our president;- provide that a director may only be removed from the board of directors for cause and then only by the affirmative vote of our shareholders;- provide that vacancies on our board of directors may be filled only by a majority of directors then in office, even if less than a quorum;- specify that only our board of directors may change the size of our board of directors;- establish an advance notice procedure for shareholder proposals to be brought before an annual meeting of our shareholders, including proposed nominations of persons for election to our board of directors;- specify that no shareholder is permitted to cumulate votes at any election of directors;- expressly authorize our board of directors to modify, alter or repeal our Bylaws; and - require supermajority votes of the holders of our common stock to amend specified provisions of our Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws. These provisions, alone or together, could delay or prevent hostile takeovers and changes in control or changes in our management or our board of directors. In addition, because we are incorporated in the State of Washington, we are governed by the provisions of Chapter 23B.19 of the Washington Business Corporation Act ("WBCA"), which prohibits certain business combinations between us and certain significant shareholders unless specified conditions are met. These provisions may also have the effect of delaying or preventing a change in control of our company. Any provision of our Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws or Washington law that has the effect of delaying or deterring a change in control could limit the opportunity for our shareholders to receive a premium for their shares of our common stock, and could also affect the price that some investors are willing to pay for our common stock.

Sales of substantial amounts of our common stock or other equity securities in the public market, particularly by our directors, executive officers and significant shareholders, including upon the expiration of any lock-up periods entered into in connection with offerings of our common stock or other equity securities, or the perception that these sales could occur, could materially and adversely affect the price of our common stock and impair our ability to raise capital through the sale of equity securities.

The trading market for our common stock depends, in part, on the research and reports that securities or industry analysts publish about us or our business. We do not control these analysts. If one or more of the analysts who cover us downgrade our stock or publish inaccurate or unfavorable evaluations of our company or our stock, the price of our stock could decline. If one or more of these analysts cease coverage of our company or fail to publish reports covering our company regularly, our stock may lose visibility in the market, which in turn could cause our stock price to decline. In addition, if we are the subject of negative publicity, whether from an analyst, academic, industry group or the general or financial press, our stock price may decline.

We currently intend to retain all available funds and any future earnings to support operations and to finance the growth and development of our business, and do not anticipate paying any cash dividends on our common stock for the foreseeable future. In addition, the terms of any future debt agreements may preclude us from paying dividends. As a result, capital appreciation, if any, of our common stock will be your sole source of gain for the foreseeable future.

Pursuant to Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 ("Section 404"), we are required to furnish a report by our management on our internal control over financial reporting, including an attestation report on internal control over financial reporting issued by our independent registered public accounting firm. Our compliance with Section 404 necessitates that we incur substantial accounting expense and expend significant management efforts. We will continue to dedicate internal resources, potentially engage outside consultants, and adopt a detailed work plan to assess and document the adequacy of internal control over financial reporting, continue steps to improve control processes as appropriate, validate through testing that controls are functioning as documented, and implement a continuous reporting and improvement process for internal control over financial reporting. Despite our efforts, there is a risk that neither we nor our independent registered public accounting firm will be able to conclude within the prescribed timeframe that our internal control over financial reporting is effective as required by Section 404. This could result in an adverse reaction in the financial markets due to a loss of confidence in the reliability of our consolidated financial statements. We are also required to maintain disclosure controls and procedures. Disclosure controls and procedures means our controls and other procedures that are designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed by us in the reports that we file or submit under the Exchange Act is recorded, processed, summarized and reported, within the time periods specified in the rules and forms of the SEC. We do not expect that our disclosure controls and procedures or our internal control over financial reporting will prevent or detect all errors and all fraud. We believe a control system, no matter how well-designed and operated, can provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurance that the control system's objectives will be met. Due to the inherent limitations in all control systems, no evaluation of controls can provide absolute assurance that misstatements due to error or fraud will not occur or that all control issues and instances of fraud, if any, have been detected. The design of any system of controls is based in part on certain assumptions about the likelihood of future events, and any design may not succeed in achieving its stated goals under all potential future conditions. Over time, controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions or deterioration in the degree of compliance with policies or procedures. Accordingly, because of the inherent limitations in our control system, misstatements due to error or fraud may occur and not be detected.

We have incurred net losses since our inception and we may never achieve or sustain profitability. Generally, losses incurred will carry forward until such losses expire (for losses generated prior to January 1, 2018) or are used to offset future taxable income, if any. Utilization of our NOL carryforwards and credits may be subject to a substantial annual limitation due to the ownership change limitations provided by Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 ("Section 382") and similar state provisions. The annual limitation may result in the expiration of NOL carryforwards and credits before utilization. If there should be an ownership change, our ability to utilize our NOL carryforwards and credits could be limited. We have completed a Section 382 analysis for changes in ownership through June 30, 2023 and continue to monitor for changes that could trigger a limitation. Based on this analysis, we do not expect to have any permanent limitations on the utilization of our federal NOLs. Under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (the "TCJA"), federal NOLs incurred in 2018 and future years may be carried forward indefinitely, but the deductibility of such federal NOLs is subject to an annual limitation. NOLs generated prior to 2018 are eligible to be carried forward up to 20 years. Based on the available objective evidence, management determined that it was more likely than not that the net deferred tax assets would not be realizable as of December 31, 2023. Accordingly, management applied a full valuation allowance against net deferred tax assets as of December 31, 2023. We may experience ownership changes in the future as a result of shifts in our stock ownership, which may be outside of our control. As a result, if we earn net taxable income, our ability to use our pre-ownership change NOL carryforwards to offset such taxable income will be subject to limitations. Similar provisions of state tax law may also apply to limit our use of accumulated state tax attributes. As a result, even if we attain profitability, we may be unable to use a material portion of our NOL carryforwards and other tax attributes, which could adversely affect our future cash flows.

Our financial condition and operating results have varied in the past and will continue to fluctuate from quarter-to-quarter and year-to-year in the future due to a variety of factors, many of which are beyond our control. Factors relating to our business that may contribute to these fluctuations include the following, as well as other factors described elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K: - the timing of upfront payments from our collaborators;- our ability and that of our collaborators to develop and successfully commercialize our products, including therapeutic products;- our ability to achieve collaboration-based milestones on currently contemplated timelines, or at all;- availability and extent of reimbursement by governmental and private payors for our products;- the ability of our clinical sales teams to continue converting physicians from using incumbent products in the market to clonoSEQ and new diagnostic products and services we may develop;- our ability to continue driving repeat usage of the clonoSEQ diagnostic test by physicians and get reimbursed for that repeat usage by commercial and government payors for monitoring of MRD;- the outcomes of research initiatives, clinical trials or other product development or approval processes conducted by us or our collaborators;- the level of demand for our products;- our relationships, and any associated exclusivity terms, with collaborators;- our ability to manage our growth and operating expenses;- our contractual or other obligations to provide resources to fund our products and services and to provide resources to our collaborations;- delays or failures in advancement of future products in clinical trials by us or our collaborators;- risks associated with any future international expansion of our business, including the potential to conduct clinical trials and commercialize our products and services in multiple international locations;- our ability and that of our collaborators to consistently manufacture our products;- our dependence on, and the need to attract and retain, key management and other personnel;- our ability to obtain, protect and enforce our intellectual property rights;- our ability to prevent the theft or misappropriation of our intellectual property, know-how or technologies;- our ability to obtain additional capital that may be necessary to expand our business;- our ability to accurately report our financial results in a timely manner;- business interruptions such as power outages, strikes, acts of terrorism or natural disasters; and - our ability to use our net operating loss ("NOL") carryforwards to offset future taxable income. The cumulative effects of factors discussed above could result in large fluctuations and unpredictability in our quarterly and annual operating results. As a result, comparing our operating results on a period-to-period basis may not be meaningful. Investors should not rely on our past results as an indication of our future performance. In any particular period, our operating results could be below the expectations of securities analysts or investors, which could cause our stock price to decline. While as a general matter we intend to periodically report on the status of our development initiatives, including anticipated next steps, we may not provide forward-looking guidance on the timing of those next steps. In addition, we do not control the timing of disclosure of any such milestones related to any of our products that are managed by our collaborators. Any disclosure by us or our collaborators of data that is perceived as negative may have a material adverse impact on our stock price or overall valuation. Our stock price may decline as a result of unexpected clinical trial results in one or more of our products, including adverse safety events reported for any of our products.

The availability and extent of reimbursement by governmental and private payors is essential for most patients to be able to afford the clinical diagnostic tests and therapeutics that we and our collaborators plan to develop and sell. In addition, because our clinical diagnostics and some of our potential therapeutic products will represent new approaches to the research, diagnosis, detection and treatment of diseases, we cannot accurately estimate how our products and services, and those jointly created with our collaborators, would be priced, whether reimbursement could be obtained or any potential revenue generated. Sales of our products will depend substantially, both domestically and internationally, on the extent to which the costs of our products and services are paid by health maintenance, managed care, pharmacy benefit and similar healthcare management organizations, or reimbursed by government health administration authorities, private health coverage insurers and other third-party payors. If reimbursement is not available, or is available only to limited levels, we may not be able to successfully commercialize some of our products or services. Even if coverage is provided, the approved reimbursement amount may not be high enough to allow us to establish or maintain pricing sufficient to realize a sufficient return on our investment in any of our products or services. If we adopt a self-pay strategy with respect to any products or services, we may experience similar difficulties in the establishment or maintenance of sufficiently high pricing. Changes in the reimbursement landscape may occur, which are outside of our control, and may impact the commercial viability of our products and services. There is significant uncertainty related to the insurance coverage and reimbursement of newly cleared, authorized or approved products and services. In the U.S., many significant decisions about reimbursement for new diagnostics and medicines are typically made by CMS, an agency within the HHS, and its contractors. CMS and its contractors decide whether and to what extent a new diagnostic or medicine will be covered and reimbursed under Medicare. Private payors tend to follow CMS policies to a substantial degree. It is difficult to predict what CMS and its contractors will decide with respect to reimbursement for novel products and services such as ours. Additionally, reimbursement agencies in Europe may be more conservative than CMS. These inherent limitations could affect our ability to realize revenues from our clinical products, including new indications addressed for clonoSEQ. Outside the U.S., the reimbursement process and timelines vary significantly. Certain countries, including a number of member states of the EU, set prices and make reimbursement decisions for diagnostics and pharmaceutical products, or medicinal products, as they are commonly referred to in the EU, with limited participation from the marketing authorization or Conformité Européene ("CE") mark holders, or may take decisions that are unfavorable to the authorization or CE mark holder where they have participated in the process. We cannot be sure that such prices and reimbursement decisions will be acceptable to us or our collaborators. If the regulatory authorities in these foreign jurisdictions set prices or make reimbursement criteria that are not commercially attractive for us or our collaborators, our revenues and the potential profitability of our products and services in those countries would be negatively affected. An increasing number of countries, including the U.S. and the EU, are pursuing initiatives to attempt to control the healthcare budget by focusing cost-cutting efforts on medicinal products, and to a lesser extent, medical devices, provided under their state-run healthcare systems. Additionally, some countries require approval of the sale price of a product before it can be marketed or mandatory discounts or profit caps may be applied. Further, after the sale price is approved, it remains subject to review during the product lifecycle. In many countries, the pricing review period begins after marketing or product licensing approval is granted or the CE mark is obtained. As a result, we or our collaborators might obtain marketing approval for a product or service in a particular country, but then may experience delays in the reimbursement approval or be subject to price regulations that would delay the commercial launch of our product or service, possibly for lengthy time periods, which could negatively impact the revenues we are able to generate from the sale of that product or service in that particular country. Moreover, increasing efforts by governmental and third-party payors, in the U.S. and abroad, to cap or reduce healthcare costs may cause such organizations to limit both coverage and level of reimbursement for newly cleared, authorized or approved devices and medicines and, as a result, they may not cover or provide adequate payment for our clinical diagnostics or the cellular therapies to be sold by us or our collaborators. For example, the U.S. government introduced the Lower Drug Costs Now Act of 2019 to reduce the cost of drugs. This blueprint contains certain measures that HHS is already working to implement. In addition, the No Surprises Act ("NSA") took effect in January 2022. One of the goals of the NSA is to protect patients from "surprise" medical bills resulting from gaps in coverage for services provided by out-of-network providers, such as laboratories, related to patient visits at in-network facilities. The NSA limits the amount out-of-network laboratories may charge a patient for laboratory services ordered during an in-network facility visit and establishes an independent dispute resolution process for determining the amount of reimbursement for the laboratory service in the event that the laboratory and insurer cannot agree on a rate. To the extent the NSA limits the price charged for our diagnostic products or cellular therapeutics, the commercial viability of those products may be adversely affected. At the state level, legislatures are increasingly passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological program pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, which are, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. We expect to experience pricing pressures on our clinical diagnostics and cellular therapies sold by us and our collaborators due to the trend toward value-based pricing and coverage, the increasing influence of health maintenance organizations and additional legislative changes. The downward pressure on healthcare costs in general, particularly prescription drugs and surgical procedures and other treatments, has become very intense. As a result, increasingly high barriers are being erected to the entry of new products.

Federal law requires virtually all clinical laboratories to comply with CLIA, which generally involves becoming certified by the federal and state government for the testing that will be performed and complying with various operational, personnel, facilities administration, quality and proficiency testing requirements intended to ensure that testing services are accurate and reliable. CLIA certification is also a prerequisite to be eligible to bill state and federal healthcare programs, as well as many private third-party payors, for laboratory research and clinical diagnostic testing services. As a condition of our CLIA certification, our Seattle, Washington laboratory is subject to survey and inspection every other year, additional random inspections and surprise inspections based on complaints received by state or federal regulators. The biennial survey and inspection is conducted by CMS, a CMS agent or, if the laboratory holds a CLIA certificate of accreditation, a CMS-approved accreditation organization, such as CAP. Sanctions for failure to comply with CLIA requirements, including proficiency testing violations, may include suspension, revocation or limitation of a laboratory's CLIA certificate, which is necessary to conduct business, as well as the imposition of significant civil, administrative or criminal sanctions against the lab, its owners and other individuals. In addition, we are subject to regulation under certain state laws and regulations governing laboratory licensure. Some states, including Washington, have enacted laboratory licensure and compliance laws that are more stringent than CLIA. Changes in state licensure laws that affect our ability to offer and provide research and diagnostic products and services across state or foreign country lines could materially and adversely affect our business. In addition, state and foreign requirements for laboratory certification may be costly or difficult to meet and could affect our ability to receive specimens from certain states or foreign countries. Any sanction imposed under CLIA, its implementing regulations or state or foreign laws or regulations governing licensure, or our failure to renew a CLIA certificate, a state or foreign license or accreditation, could have a material adverse effect on our business.

In order to eventually market any of our current or future products and services in any particular foreign jurisdiction, we must establish and comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis regarding quality, safety, performance and efficacy. In addition, clinical trials or clinical investigations conducted in one country may not be accepted by regulatory authorities in other countries, and regulatory clearance, authorization or approval in one country does not guarantee regulatory clearance, authorization or approval in any other country. Approval processes vary among countries and can involve additional product testing and validation and additional administrative review periods. Seeking foreign regulatory clearance, authorization or approval could result in difficulties and costs for us and our collaborators and require additional preclinical studies, clinical trials or clinical investigations which could be costly and time-consuming. Regulatory requirements and ethical approval obligations can vary widely from country to country and could delay or prevent the introduction of our products and services in those countries. The foreign regulatory clearance, authorization or approval process involves all of the risks and uncertainties associated with FDA clearance, authorization or approval. We have completed a technology transfer process for research use to international sites including France, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, Spain, and Australia, but have no experience in obtaining regulatory clearance, authorization or approval in international markets. If we or our collaborators fail to comply with regulatory requirements in international markets or to obtain and maintain required regulatory clearances, authorizations or approvals in international markets, or if those approvals are delayed, our target market will be reduced and our ability to realize the full market potential of our products and services will be unrealized.

Healthcare providers, physicians, hospitals and third-party payors often play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of any currently marketed products and services for which we may obtain clearance, authorization or approval. Our current and future arrangements with healthcare providers, physicians, hospitals and third-party payors, and our sales, marketing and educational activities related to our products and services, may expose us to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations at the federal and state level that may constrain our business or financial arrangements, and the relationships through which we market, sell and distribute our products and services. In addition, our operations are also subject to various federal and state fraud and abuse, physician payment transparency, and privacy and security laws, including, without limitation: - The AKS, which prohibits, among other things, persons and entities, including clinical laboratories, from knowingly and willfully soliciting, receiving, offering or paying remuneration, whether directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly, in case or in kind, to induce or reward or in return for either the referral of an individual or the purchase, lease, order or recommendation of an item or service reimbursable, in whole or in part, under a federal healthcare program such as Medicare or Medicaid. The AKS has been interpreted broadly to apply to, among other things, arrangements between clinical laboratories and prescribers and purchasers of our tests. The term "remuneration" expressly includes kickbacks, bribes or rebates and has been broadly interpreted to include anything of value, including gifts, discounts, waivers of payment, ownership interests and any goods or services provided at less than their fair market value. There are several statutory exceptions and regulatory safe harbors protecting certain common activities from prosecution or other regulatory sanctions, however, these exceptions and safe harbors are drawn narrowly, and practices that do not fit squarely within an exception or safe harbor may be subject to scrutiny. The failure to meet all of the requirements of a particular statutory exception or regulatory safe harbor does not make the conduct per se illegal under the AKS. Instead, the legality of the arrangement will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis based on a cumulative review of the facts and circumstances to determine whether one purpose of the remuneration in the arrangement was to induce referrals or generate business that is payable by a federal healthcare program. A violation of the AKS may be grounds for the government or a whistleblower to assert that a claim for payment of items or services resulting from such violation constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the False Claims Act. Moreover, certain AKS safe harbors currently protecting rebates paid by device manufacturers to third parties and other arrangements between device manufacturers and third parties may later be modified or repealed pursuant to a pending regulatory proposal, which could require us to revisit or modify our business practices. Our practices may not meet all of the criteria for safe harbor protection from AKS liability in all cases. A person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the AKS or specific intent to violate any AKS provisions to have committed a violation. In addition, renumeration may not be offered or provided to beneficiaries under the monetary penalty law provision prohibiting inducements to beneficiaries. - Section 8122 of the SUPPORT Act, EKRA, which establishes an all-payor anti-kickback prohibition that extends to arrangements with recovery homes, clinical laboratories and clinical treatment facilities. EKRA includes a number of statutory exceptions, and directs agencies to develop further exceptions. Current EKRA exceptions in some cases reference, and in others differ from, the AKS safe harbors. Significantly, the EKRA prohibitions apply to the soliciting or receipt of remuneration for any referrals to recovery homes, clinical treatment facilities or clinical laboratories, whether or not related to the treatment of substance use disorders. Further, the EKRA prohibitions cover the payment or offer of remuneration to induce a referral to, or in exchange for, an individual using the services of such providers. EKRA creates additional risk that relationships with referral sources could be problematic. - Federal civil and criminal false claims laws and civil monetary penalty laws, including the False Claims Act, which prohibits individuals or entities from, among other things, knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, claims for payment to, or approval by, the federal government that are false, fictitious or fraudulent, or knowingly making, using or causing to be made or used a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim to avoid, decrease or conceal an obligation to pay money to the federal government. As a result of a modification made by the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009, a claim includes "any request or demand" for money or property presented to the federal government. The False Claims Act also permits a private individual acting as a "whistleblower" to bring actions on behalf of the federal government alleging violations of the False Claims Act and to share in any monetary recovery. In addition, AKS violations implicate the False Claims Act. Conduct that results in a False Claims Act violation may also implicate various federal criminal statutes. - The Criminal Health Care Fraud Statute, which imposes criminal and civil liability for knowingly and willfully executing, or attempting to execute, a scheme to defraud or to obtain, by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations or promises, any money or property owned by, or under the control or custody of, any healthcare benefit program, including private third-party payors, and knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up by trick, scheme or device, a material fact or making any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement in connection with the delivery of or payment for healthcare benefits, items or services. Similar to the AKS, a person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge or specific intent to violate the Criminal Health Care Fraud Statute. - The Stark Law, which is directed at "self-referral," prohibits, with certain exceptions, referrals for certain DHS, including laboratory services, that are covered by Medicare and Medicaid by physicians who personally, or through a family member, have an investment or ownership interest in, or a compensation arrangement with, an entity performing the tests. The prohibition also extends to payment for any testing referred in violation of the Stark Law. Because the Stark Law is a strict liability statute, proof of specific intent to violate the law is not a required element of a violation. Any person who engages in a scheme to circumvent the Stark Law's referral prohibition may be subject to significant fines for each such arrangement or scheme. In addition, any person who presents or causes to be presented a claim to Medicare or Medicaid in violation of the Stark Law is subject to civil monetary penalties applied to each bill submission, an assessment of up to three times the amount claimed and possible exclusion from participation in federal governmental payor programs, and those claims are considered false claims for which the parties to the arrangement may be liable under the False Claims Act. Bills submitted in violation of the Stark Law may not be paid by Medicare or Medicaid, and any person collecting any amounts with respect to any such prohibited bill is obligated to refund such amounts. Many states have comparable laws that are not limited to Medicare and Medicaid referrals. The Stark Law also places an annual cap on the amount of non-monetary compensation, which consists of meal spend and educational items, that a company can spend on a physician in the aggregate. We occasionally enter into financial relationships, usually compensation relationships, such as a consulting arrangement, with physicians who refer patients for testing. If these arrangements do not meet the Stark Law's requirements, any claims submitted to Medicare or Medicaid could violate the law and put both the physician referral source and us at risk. - The administrative simplification provisions of HIPAA, as amended and supplemented by HITECH, impose, among other things, obligations, including mandatory contractual terms, with respect to safeguarding the privacy, security and transmission of protected health information ("PHI") held by certain healthcare providers, health plans and healthcare clearinghouses, known as covered entities, and their respective business associates. Among other things, HITECH made certain aspects of HIPAA's rules, notably the "HIPAA Security Rule," directly applicable to business associates, independent contractors or agents of covered entities that create, receive, maintain or transmit PHI in connection with providing a function on behalf of, or a service to, a covered entity. HITECH also created four new tiers of civil monetary penalties, amended HIPAA to make civil and criminal penalties directly applicable to business associates and gave state attorneys general new authority to file civil actions for damages or injunctions in federal court to enforce the federal HIPAA regulation and seek attorneys' fees and costs associated with pursuing federal civil actions. The HHS Office for Civil Rights ("OCR") has increased its focus on compliance and continues to train state attorneys general for enforcement purposes. The OCR has recently increased both its efforts to audit HIPAA compliance and its level of enforcement, with one recent penalty exceeding $16 million. - GINA, which restricts employers and health insurance companies from requiring or using the results of genetic tests in specific contexts and does not provide a private right of action. A number of states have also adopted laws regarding genetic tests, some aligned with GINA and some with broader applicability, including granting broader rights to individuals and imposing strict obligations on organizations to safeguard genetic data and the results of any such testing. - The Physician Payments Sunshine Act created under the ACA, and its implementing regulations, which requires applicable manufacturers of covered drugs, devices, biologics and medical supplies for which payment is available under Medicare, Medicaid or the State Children's Health Insurance Program, with certain exceptions, to annually report to HHS information related to certain payments or other transfers of value made or distributed to physicians and teaching hospitals, or to entities or individuals at the request of, or designated on behalf of, physicians and teaching hospitals, as well as ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members. The Physician Payments Sunshine Act has been extended to payments and transfers of value to physician assistants, nurse practitioners and other mid-level healthcare providers for payments and other transfers of value made to these practitioners. In addition, certain state and local laws may impose additional transparency and healthcare compliance requirements on medical device manufacturers, as well as certain restrictions or limits on interactions with healthcare professionals. - The FTCA, which the FTC interprets to require taking appropriate steps to secure consumers' personal information and considers the failures to do so to constitute unfair acts or practices in or affecting commerce in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTCA. The FTC expects a company's data security measures to be reasonable and appropriate in light of the sensitivity and volume of consumer information it holds, the size and complexity of its business, and the cost of available tools to improve security and reduce vulnerabilities. Medical data is considered sensitive data that merits stronger safeguards, and the FTC's guidance for appropriately securing consumers' personal information is consistent with what is required by the HIPAA Security Rule. Some states, most notably Massachusetts and Nevada, also have adopted laws requiring the implementation of security measures to protect personal information, and all 50 states and the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and Guam, have adopted breach notification laws. - Analogous state laws and regulations, such as state anti-kickback, self-referral and false claims laws, which may apply to items or services reimbursed by any third-party payor, including commercial insurers, and in some cases even in self-pay scenarios. In addition, some state laws require life sciences companies to comply with the industry's voluntary compliance guidelines and the relevant compliance guidance promulgated by the federal government, or to impose transparency requirements or restrictions on marketing activities. - Various state, federal and foreign laws and regulations govern our ability to communicate, prospect, advertise and market our products and services through email, phone, text messages, facsimile and online methods. Because of the breadth of these laws and the narrowness of the exceptions and safe harbors available under them, it is possible that certain of our business activities could be subject to challenge under one or more of such laws. The scope and enforcement of each of these laws is uncertain and subject to rapid change in the current environment of healthcare reform, especially in light of the lack of applicable precedent and regulations. Federal and state enforcement bodies have recently increased their scrutiny of the ongoing interactions between healthcare companies and healthcare providers, which has led to a number of investigations, prosecutions, convictions and settlements in the healthcare industry. Ensuring that business arrangements with third parties comply with applicable healthcare laws, as well as responding to possible investigations by government authorities, can be time- and resource-consuming and can divert management's attention from our business. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of the health regulatory laws described above or any other laws that apply to us, we may be subject to penalties, including, but not limited to, criminal, civil and administrative penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, individual imprisonment, possible exclusion from participation in government healthcare programs, injunctions, private qui tam actions brought by individual whistleblowers in the name of the government and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, as well as additional reporting obligations and oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or other agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our results of operations.

Even if we or our collaborators obtain regulatory clearance, authorization, approval, accreditation or licensure in a jurisdiction for our products and services, the applicable regulatory authority may still impose significant restrictions on the indicated uses or marketing of our products and services, or impose ongoing requirements for potentially costly post-approval studies or post-market surveillance of our or our collaborators' manufacturing and distribution. Advertising for certain devices and labeling, including promotional labeling, for all devices must comply with FDA requirements. In addition, device advertising and promotion may also be subject to other federal and state laws. For example, the FDA shares jurisdiction over the regulation of device advertising with the FTC. Advertising for devices characterized as restricted by the FDA is subject to specified FDA requirements, while advertising for non-restricted devices is regulated by the FTC. If we or our collaborators fail to comply with applicable regulatory requirements following clearance, authorization, approval, accreditation or licensure of any of our products and services, a regulatory agency may: - initiate an inspection of our or our collaborators' facilities;- issue an untitled or warning letter asserting that we or our collaborators are in violation of law;- seek an injunction or impose civil or criminal penalties or monetary fines;- suspend or withdraw regulatory clearance, authorization or approval, or revoke a license or accreditation;- suspend any ongoing clinical studies;- delay or refuse clearance, authorization or approval of a pending regulatory submission or supplement submitted by us or our collaborators;- impose restrictions on our or our collaborators' cleared, authorized, approved, accredited or licensed products or services;- seize or recall the product or service;- partially suspend or entirely shut down our or our collaborators' manufacturing or laboratory operations;- issue advisories or other field actions;- impose operating restrictions;- refuse to allow us or our collaborators to enter into supply contracts, including government contracts; or - refer matters to the DOJ or other enforcement or regulatory bodies. Any government investigation of alleged violations of law could require us to expend significant time and resources in response and could generate negative publicity. The occurrence of any event or penalty described above may inhibit our and our collaborators' ability to commercialize any cleared, authorized or approved products and services and generate revenues.

Before we begin to manufacture, label and market additional clinical diagnostic products for commercial diagnostic use in the U.S., we may be required to obtain either clearance, marketing authorization or approval from the FDA and state regulatory authorities with jurisdiction over such products, unless an exemption applies or, in the case of the FDA, it exercises its enforcement discretion and refrains from enforcing its requirements. For example, the FDA currently has a policy of refraining from enforcing its medical device requirements with respect to LDTs, which the FDA considers to be a type of in vitro diagnostic test that is designed, manufactured and used within a single properly licensed laboratory. The process of obtaining PMA from the FDA is much more rigorous, costly, lengthy and uncertain than the 510(k) clearance process. In the PMA approval process, the FDA must determine that a proposed device is safe and effective for its intended use based, in part, on extensive data, including, but not limited to, technical, preclinical, clinical trial, manufacturing and labeling data. Conversely, in the 510(k) clearance process, the FDA must determine that a proposed device is "substantially equivalent" to a legally marketed "predicate" device in order for the product to be cleared for marketing. To be "substantially equivalent," the proposed device must have the same intended use as the predicate device, and either have the same technological characteristics or if it has different technological characteristics as the predicate device, the proposed device must be as safe and effective as, and not raise different questions of safety or effectiveness than, the predicate device. Clinical data is sometimes required to support substantial equivalence. For lower-risk devices that would otherwise automatically be placed into Class III, which require a PMA because no predicate device is available and the devices do not fall within an existing 510(k)-exempt classification, an applicant may submit a de novo request to down classify the device into Class II or Class I, which would not require a PMA. In the de novo process, the FDA must determine that general and special controls are sufficient to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of a device, which is low to moderate risk and has no predicate. In other words, the applicant must justify the "down-classification" to Class I or II for a new product type that would otherwise automatically be placed into Class III, but is lower risk. Clinical data may be required. For laboratory tests for which FDA clearance, authorization or approval is required, the FDA may also require data to support analytical and clinical validity. The 510(k), de novo and PMA processes can be expensive and lengthy and require the payment of significant fees, unless an exemption applies. The FDA's 510(k) clearance pathway usually takes from three to nine months from submission, but it can take longer for a novel type of product. The FDA's de novo classification pathway usually takes from six to 12 months, but for many applicants can take up to 18 months or more. The process of obtaining a PMA generally takes from one to three years, or even longer, from the time the PMA is submitted to the FDA until an approval is obtained. Any delay or failure to obtain necessary regulatory clearances, authorizations or approvals would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and prospects. The FDA can delay, limit or deny clearance, authorization or approval of a device for many reasons, including: - the inability to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the FDA that the products are safe or effective for their intended uses;- the disagreement of the FDA with the design, conduct or implementation of the clinical trials or the analysis or interpretation of data from preclinical studies, analytical studies or clinical trials;- serious and unexpected adverse device effects experienced by participants in clinical trials;- the data from preclinical studies, analytical studies and clinical trials may be insufficient to support clearance, authorization or approval, where required;- the inability to demonstrate that the clinical and other benefits of the device outweigh the risks;- an advisory committee, if convened by the FDA, may recommend against approval of a PMA or other application or may recommend that the FDA require, as a condition of approval, additional preclinical studies or clinical trials, limitations on approved labeling or distribution and use restrictions, or even if an advisory committee makes a favorable recommendation, the FDA may still not approve the product;- the FDA may identify deficiencies in our marketing application;- the FDA may identify deficiencies in our or our collaborators' manufacturing processes, facilities or analytical methods;- the potential for policies or regulations of the FDA or applicable foreign regulatory bodies to change significantly in a manner rendering clinical data or regulatory filings insufficient for clearance, authorization or approval; and - the FDA or foreign regulatory authorities may audit clinical trial data and conclude that the data is not sufficiently reliable to support a PMA. There are numerous FDA personnel assigned to review different aspects of marketing submissions, which can present uncertainties based on their ability to exercise judgment and discretion during the review process. During the course of review, the FDA may request or require additional data and information, and the development and provision of these data and information may be time-consuming and expensive. The process of obtaining regulatory clearances, authorizations or approvals to market a medical device can be costly and time-consuming, and we may not be able to obtain these clearances, authorizations or approvals on a timely basis, or at all for our products in development. If we are unable to obtain clearance, authorization or approval for any products for which we plan to seek clearance, authorization or approval, our business may be harmed.

In addition to offering the cleared version of clonoSEQ as a test for MRD in certain blood cancers, we also currently offer LDT versions of this test for other indications. The FDA has a policy of enforcement discretion with respect to LDTs whereby the FDA does not actively enforce its medical device regulatory requirements for such tests. However, in October 2014, the FDA issued two draft guidance documents stating that the FDA intended to modify its policy of enforcement discretion with respect to LDTs in a risk-based manner consistent with the existing classification of medical devices. Although the FDA halted finalization of the guidance in November 2016 to allow for further public discussion on an appropriate oversight approach to LDTs and to give Congressional authorizing committees the opportunity to develop a legislative solution, it is unclear if Congress or the FDA will modify the current approach to the regulation of LDTs in a way that would subject our current or future services marketed as LDTs to the enforcement of FDA regulatory requirements. The FDA Commissioner and the Director of the Center for Devices and Radiological Health ("CDRH") have expressed significant concerns regarding disparities between some LDTs and in vitro diagnostics that have been reviewed, cleared, authorized or approved by the FDA. If the FDA were to determine that NGS MRD tests offered as LDTs are not within the policy for LDTs for any reason, including new rules, policies or guidance, or due to changes in statute, our tests may become subject to extensive FDA requirements or our business may otherwise be adversely affected. If the FDA were to disagree with our LDT status or modify its approach to regulating LDTs, we could experience reduced revenue or increased costs, which could adversely affect our business, prospects, results of operations and financial condition. If required, the regulatory marketing authorization process required to bring our current or future LDTs into compliance may involve, among other things, successfully completing additional clinical validations and submitting to and obtaining clearance from the FDA for a premarket clearance (510(k)) submission or authorization for a de novo or approval of a PMA. Furthermore, recently introduced legislation, if passed, such as the VALID Act, could create new or different regulatory and compliance burdens on us and could have a negative effect on our ability to develop new products, which could have a material effect on our business. In the event that the FDA requires marketing authorization of our LDTs in the future, the FDA may not ultimately grant any clearance, authorization or approval requested by us in a timely manner, or at all. In addition, if the FDA inspects our laboratory in relation to the marketing of our FDA-cleared clonoSEQ test, any enforcement action the FDA takes might not be limited to the FDA-cleared clonoSEQ test and could encompass our LDT testing service.

Certain of our products are currently provided on a RUO basis, not for use in the diagnosis or treatment of disease. Pursuant to FDA guidance on RUO products, a company may not make clinical or diagnostic claims about an RUO product or provide clinical directions or clinical support services to customers of RUO products. If the FDA were to disagree with our RUO classification or modify its approach to regulating RUO products, we could experience reduced revenue or increased compliance and other costs, which could adversely affect our business, prospects, results of operations and financial condition. In the event that the FDA requires marketing authorization of our RUO products in the future, the FDA may not ultimately grant any clearance, authorization or approval requested by us in a timely manner, or at all.

Even after we have obtained marketing authorization (as we did for clonoSEQ) we must comply with the scope of that clearance, authorization or approval. Failure to comply with those limitations or the additional, extensive and ongoing post-marketing obligations imposed by the FDA or other regulatory requirements of other regulatory agencies, such as the Clinical Laboratory Evaluation Program for New York State, could result in unanticipated compliance expenditures, a range of administrative enforcement actions, injunctions and criminal prosecution. FDA post-market obligations include, among other things, compliance with the FDA QSR, establishing registration and device listings, labeling requirements, reporting of certain adverse events and malfunctions, and reporting of certain recalls. In addition, circumstances may arise that cause us to recall equipment used in connection with our products and services. Such recalls could have an adverse effect on our ability to provide those products and services, which in turn would adversely affect our financial condition. Our collaborators will also be required to maintain FDA clearance and possibly also other authorizations or approvals for the products and services that we jointly develop. Any failure by us or our collaborators to maintain such clearance, authorization or approval could impair or cause a delay in our ability to profit from these collaborations.

Investors, shareholders, customers, suppliers and other third parties are increasingly focusing on ESG and corporate social responsibility endeavors and reporting. Certain institutional investors, investment funds, other influential investors, customers, suppliers and other third parties are also increasingly focused on ESG practices. In particular, third party proxy advisory services which focus on shareholder rights provisions, such as majority voting, annual election of directors, and overboarding of outside directors, have recommended against voting for our directors in past elections as a result of our governance profile. Companies that do not adapt to or comply with the evolving investor or stakeholder expectations and standards, or which are perceived to have not responded appropriately, may suffer from reputational damage and result in the business, financial condition and/or stock price of a company being materially and adversely affected. Further, this increased focus on ESG issues may result in new regulations and/or third-party requirements that could adversely impact our business, or certain shareholders reducing or eliminating their holdings of our stock. Additionally, an allegation or perception that we have not taken sufficient action in these areas could negatively harm our reputation. Companies across all industries are facing increasing scrutiny relating to their ESG policies. If we are perceived to have not responded appropriately to the growing concern for governance issues, investors may reconsider their capital investment as a result of their assessment of our practices, and our reputation, business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows may be adversely affected.

We are creating new products, many of which are initially based on largely untested technologies. As all of our products and services progress, we or others may determine that we made product or service level scientific or technological mistakes or omissions. The testing processes utilize a number of complex and sophisticated biochemical, informatics, optical and mechanical processes, many of which are highly sensitive to external factors and variation between testing runs. Refinements to our processes may initially result in unanticipated issues that reduce the efficiency or increase variability. In particular, DNA sequencing, which is a key component of these processes, could be inefficient with higher than expected variability thereby increasing total sequencing costs and reducing the number of samples we can process in a given time period, which may negatively impact customer turnaround time. Therefore, inefficient or variable processes can cause variability in our operating results and damage our reputation. In addition, our development laboratory operations could result in any number of errors or defects. Our quality assurance system or product development processes may fail to prevent us from inadvertent problems with samples, sample quality, lab processes including sequencing, software, data upload or analysis, raw materials, reagent manufacturing, assay quality or design, or other components or processes. In addition, our assays may have quality or design errors, and we may have inadequate procedures or instrumentation to process samples, assemble our proprietary primer mixes and commercial materials, upload and analyze data, or otherwise conduct our development laboratory operations. If we provide products or services with undiscovered errors to our customers, our clinical diagnostics may falsely indicate a patient has a disease or fail to detect disease in a patient who requires treatment. We believe our customers are likely to be particularly sensitive to product and service defects, errors and delays, including if our products and services fail to indicate the presence of residual disease with high accuracy from clinical specimens or if we fail to list or inaccurately indicate the presence or absence of disease in our test report. In drug discovery, such errors may interfere with our collaborators' clinical studies or result in adverse safety or efficacy profiles for their products in development. This may harm our customers' businesses and may cause us to incur significant costs, divert the attention of key personnel, encourage regulatory enforcement action against us, create a significant customer relations problem for us and cause our reputation to suffer. We may also be subject to liability claims for damages related to errors or defects in our products. Any of these developments could harm our business and operating results.

We have established relationships with leading oncology, hematology, immunology, autoimmunity or inflammatory disease, transplantation and solid tumor thought leaders at premier academic and research institutions. If these key thought leaders determine that our immune medicine platform or our current or future products or services are not clinically effective, determine that alternative technologies are more effective or elect to use internally developed services, we could encounter significant difficulty validating our products or services, driving adoption or establishing our immune medicine platform as an industry standard, which would limit our revenue growth and our ability to achieve profitability. In addition, negative publications or reviews by clinicians, industry groups or other important stakeholders may negatively impact our revenue growth and ability to achieve profitability.

Our success depends on the skills, experience and performance of key members of our senior management team, including our co-founders and executive officers. The individual and collective efforts of these employees will be important as we continue to develop products and services based on our immune medicine platform. The loss or incapacity of existing members of our executive management team could adversely affect our operations if we experience difficulties in hiring qualified successors. Our executive officers have signed employment agreements with us, but their service is at-will and may end at any point in time. Our research and development initiatives and laboratory operations depend on our ability to attract and retain highly skilled scientists, technicians and software engineers. We may not be able to attract or retain qualified scientists, technicians or software engineers in the future due to the competition for qualified personnel among life sciences and technology businesses, particularly near our facilities located in Seattle, Washington and our laboratory facilities located in South San Francisco, California. We also face competition from universities and public and private research institutions in recruiting and retaining highly qualified scientific personnel. We may have difficulties locating, recruiting or retaining qualified salespeople. Recruiting, training and retention difficulties can limit our ability to support our research and development and commercialization efforts. All of our employees are at-will, which means that either we or the employee may terminate their employment at any time. In addition, we rely on consultants, contractors and advisors, including scientific and clinical advisors, to assist us in formulating our research and development, regulatory and commercialization strategies. Our consultants and advisors may provide services to other organizations and may have commitments under consulting or advisory contracts with other entities that may limit their availability to us. The loss of the services of one or more of our current consultants or advisors might impede the achievement of our research, development, regulatory and commercialization objectives.

Our industry is characterized by rapid changes, including technological and scientific breakthroughs, frequent new product and service introductions and enhancements and evolving industry standards, all of which could make our current and future products obsolete. For example, there have been numerous advances in technologies relating to life sciences research and the diagnosis and treatment of cancer, and autoimmune disorders. There have also been advances in technologies used to computationally analyze very large amounts of biologic information. Our future success will depend on our ability to keep pace with evolving needs of our customers on a timely and cost-effective basis and to pursue new market opportunities that develop as a result of scientific and technological advances. If we do not update our platform and products to reflect new scientific knowledge about DNA sequencing, immunology, computational biology, software development, new disease diagnostics and therapies or the diseases we seek to treat, our products and technology could become obsolete so products and services based on our immune medicine platform could decline or fail to grow as expected.

In January 2020, CMS revised the National Coverage Determination ("NCD") for molecular diagnostic laboratory testing services utilizing a NGS methodology, which includes our clinical diagnostic products, for Medicare beneficiaries with advanced cancer. CMS revised the NCD to extend specific coverage for germline (inherited) testing. CMS stated that it is continuing to make other technical, clarifying and conforming changes in the NCD manual and they are also clarifying the existing policy related to diagnostic tests for Somatic (Acquired) Cancer. If CMS were to make material revisions to policy, this could potentially impact the scope of clonoSEQ coverage. Under Medicare Part B, payment for most diagnostic laboratory tests is made under the Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule ("CLFS"), which assigns payment amounts to tests based on billing codes. Under the Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014 ("PAMA"), certain laboratories that receive the majority of their Medicare revenue from payments made under the CLFS or Medicare's Physician Fee Schedule are required to report to CMS every three years, or annually for "advanced diagnostic laboratory tests," commercial payor payment rates and volumes for tests they perform and that are assigned specific billing codes. PAMA has special provisions relating to "advanced diagnostic laboratory tests," as defined by the statute, and these provisions affect the rate-setting at the time of launch and the periodicity of rate reporting and revision. Laboratories that fail to report the required payment information may be subject to substantial civil monetary penalties. If, in the future, clonoSEQ or any of our tests are assigned a specific code we would be required to report commercial payor payment data on those tests. Payments for tests billed under miscellaneous codes are determined by the MACs, which also have discretion to change those payment rates. CMS uses the data reported by laboratories to calculate a payment rate for each CLFS test, other than those coded with miscellaneous codes and certain others, based on the volume-weighted median of the private payor rates. These rates apply for three years, except that payment rates for advanced diagnostic laboratory tests apply for one year. If we offer tests with specific codes, this apparatus will apply. Under these circumstances, Medicare's payment rates would be determined by the rates we and other laboratories, if any, with tests that share the specific codes we use, obtain from commercial payors. In that case, if we are unable to obtain and maintain adequate reimbursement rates from commercial payors, this may adversely affect our Medicare rates. In some circumstances, our tests may be furnished to hospital inpatients and paid by Medicare under different rules. For example, when a specimen is obtained from a patient who is at the time classified by Medicare as a hospital inpatient, Medicare would not make a separate payment for the test and we would have to look to the hospital for payment. We do not know how often this will occur or whether hospitals will resist paying us for our tests. In this situation, Medicare coverage would be determined by the MAC for the jurisdiction where the hospital is located, which may not cover our tests.