Rumble Inc.

We are, and from time to time may become, involved in various legal proceedings arising in the normal course of our business activities, such as copyright infringement and tort claims arising from user-uploaded content, patent infringement claims, breach of contract claims, government demands, putative class actions based upon consumer protection or privacy laws and other matters. The amounts that may be recovered in such matters may be subject to insurance coverage.

In January 2021, we filed an antitrust lawsuit against Google in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that Google unlawfully gives an advantage to its YouTube platform over Rumble in search engine results and in the mobile phone market. The court heard arguments on Google’s motion for summary judgment in February 2025. The trial was scheduled for July 7, 2025. On May 21, 2025, the court granted Google’s motion for summary judgment on statute of limitations grounds and dismissed the case. The Company has filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Company’s appeal brief was filed on September 10, 2025. Google’s opposition brief was filed on November 10, 2025 and the Company’s reply was filed on December 1, 2025. In addition, on November 12, 2025, the Company filed a notice of motion for an indicative ruling on a request for recusal and reassignment on the grounds that the District Court’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned in light of newly discovered facts. The District Court deferred to rule on that motion, leaving it to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to render its determination.

In addition, in May 2024, we filed a second antitrust lawsuit against Google in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California related to Google’s monopolization of the online advertising market. This lawsuit is separate and distinct from the self-preferencing lawsuit filed in January 2021. In August 2024, we filed an amended complaint, and in September 2024, Google filed a motion to dismiss. In December 2024, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) transferred the case to the existing proceeding, In re: Google Digital Advertising Antitrust Litigation (JPML No. 3010). After common questions of fact are resolved in the Multidistrict Litigation proceeding, this case would be transferred back to the Northern District of California for trial. A second amended complaint was filed in April 2025. Google sought leave to file a motion to dismiss, which motion was filed on August 1, 2025. The Company’s response to such motion to dismiss was filed on October 3, 2025. In January 2026, the Court granted in part and denied in part Google’s motion. The case is ongoing.

In January 2022, we received notification of a lawsuit filed by Kosmayer Investment Inc. (“KII”) against Rumble and Mr. Pavlovski in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, alleging fraudulent misrepresentation in connection with KII’s decision to redeem its shares of Rumble in August 2020. KII is seeking rescission of such redemption such that, following such rescission, KII would own 20% of the issued and outstanding shares of Rumble or, in the alternative, damages for the lost value of the redeemed shares, which KII has alleged to be worth USD 419.0 million (based on the value ascribed to our Class A Common Shares in the ND Business Combination), together with other damages including punitive damages and costs. Although we believe that the allegations are meritless and intend to vigorously defend against them, the result or impact of such claims is uncertain, and could result in, among other things, damages, and/or awards of attorneys’ fees or expenses. A mediation session was held in April 2025. No settlement was reached. The Company filed its third amended complaint on January 30, 2026. The case remains in discovery.

Along with co-plaintiff Eugene Volokh, in December 2022, we filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to block the enforcement of New York State’s Social Media Law. In February 2023, the court granted our motion for a preliminary injunction, halting enforcement of the law. The New York Attorney General appealed that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. In a 2-1 decision, the court held that if the law were interpreted in accordance with the Company’s position, it would be unconstitutional; that said, they believe a different interpretation of the law is possible and have certified the questions to the state high court to interpret the law, putting off a federal appellate ruling on constitutionality. The Company’s brief was filed with the State of New York Court of Appeals on February 4, 2026. The injunction remains in place while the state court reviews.

In October 2024, plaintiff David Stebbins filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware naming Rumble and an unaffiliated entity doing business as “The Specter Report” as defendants. Mr. Stebbins, who is not represented by counsel, alleges six counts of copyright infringement and one count of slander and seeks injunctive relief and USD 900,000 in damages from Rumble. We have not yet been formally served with the lawsuit and believe that the allegations are meritless. The court dismissed the case against the Company in May 2025. The plaintiff appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

In November 2024, we filed a lawsuit against the California Attorney General and Secretary of State in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California to enjoin the enforcement of AB 2655, a recently enacted state law regulating online platforms. The law would require online platforms to receive reports about posts related to elections, public officials, and candidates for office that are deemed “materially deceptive”, then remove or label the content. Our lawsuit was consolidated with similar lawsuits filed by other affected online platforms and content creators, and the state of California has agreed to enjoin the enforcement of the law during the initial phases of the litigation. The plaintiffs’ summary judgment motions were filed on March 7, 2025. A further stay of enforcement was issued by the court through October 25, 2025. The summary judgment hearing took place on August 5, 2025. The judge granted our summary judgment motion from the bench. He ruled that Section 230 preempted all of AB 2655 and subsequently issued a permanent injunction against the enforcement of AB2655. The state of California filed its appeal brief on January 12, 2026. The Company’s answer will be filed on March 11, 2026.

In February 2025, we filed a complaint and a request for a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida against Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes related to content blocking orders issued by him against Rumble. The court denied, without prejudice, Rumble’s motion for a TRO on the grounds that the matter was not ripe for judicial review. The court noted that Justice Moraes’s pronouncements and directives had not been properly served on Rumble, that Rumble was not obligated to comply with such pronouncements and directives, and that no U.S. entity was required to enforce them. We filed an amended complaint on June 6, 2025. We filed a request to supplement the amended complaint on July 13, 2025 in response to a new illegal blocking order from Justice Moraes and filed a further amended complaint on July 16, 2025, which the Company attempted to serve via the Hague Service Convention. The Company filed a motion for alternative service on February 2, 2026.

In April 2025, along with Rebel News, we filed a lawsuit in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against Canada, Canada Lands Company, et al alleging that the defendants tried to block two lawful and peaceful public gatherings celebrating free speech in the Toronto area in 2024. Certain parties have been removed from the action. The case is ongoing.

In June 2025, we were served with a lawsuit from an individual named Michael Goldstein, alleging that the Company violated the California Invasion of Privacy Act by improperly disclosing personally identifiable information by way of the Facebook Pixel. The case was brought in a California state court. The case was moved to federal court in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The Company filed a motion to dismiss on August 18, 2025. The plaintiff responded on September 18, 2025, to which the Company replied on October 9, 2025. On November 6, 2025, the Court granted the Company’s Motion to Dismiss, with leave to amend. On December 5, 2025, the Plaintiff filed his amended complaint. The Company filed its Motion to Dismiss on January 26, 2026. As with prior privacy-related lawsuits, we believe that the plaintiff’s allegations are meritless.