RUM Group 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.

Proceedings as Plaintiff

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 lawsuit seeks compensatory damages and injunctive relief. In June 2021, Google filed a partial motion to dismiss the lawsuit and a motion to strike; in July 2022, the court denied Google’s motion. Discovery has concluded, and the court heard argument 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 filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In addition, 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. A determination has not yet been rendered.

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. The lawsuit seeks compensatory damages and injunctive relief. 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 Company filed a third amended complaint, which Google answered in March 2026. The case is ongoing and is now 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 its decision, the court certified certain questions regarding the interpretation of the law to the New York Court of Appeals. The Company’s brief was filed with the State of New York Court of Appeals on February 4, 2026. In June 2026, the State of New York Court of Appeals sided with the lower state court’s interpretation of the statute. The Company has submitted a supplemental letter brief to the Second 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, to which the Company filed its response on March 11, 2026. The case is ongoing.

In February 2025, the Company 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 the Company. The court denied, without prejudice, the Company’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 the Company, that the Company 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 and a motion for alternative service on February 2, 2026. The motion for alternative service was granted. In June 2026, the country of Brazil filed a motion to intervene in the action, which the Company is opposing. The case is ongoing.

In April 2025, along with Rebel News, we filed a lawsuit in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against Canada, Canada Lands Company, and others 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.

Proceedings as Defendant

In January 2022, we received notification of a lawsuit filed by Kosmayer Investment Inc. (“KII”) against the Company and Mr. Pavlovski in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, alleging fraudulent misrepresentation in connection with KII’s decision to redeem its shares of the Company 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 the Company or, in the alternative, damages for the lost value of the redeemed shares, which KII has alleged to be worth $419.0 million (based on the value ascribed to the shares of the Company in the Business Combination), together with other damages including punitive damages and costs. The case is currently in discovery. A mediation session was held in April 2025. No settlement was reached. The case is ongoing.

In October 2024, plaintiff David Stebbins filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware naming Rumble Inc. 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 $900,000 in damages from the Company. We were never formally served with the lawsuit. The court dismissed the case against the Company in May 2025. The plaintiff has since petitioned the court to reopen the case against the Company.

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 removed 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, which the Court granted, with leave to amend. On December 5, 2025, the Plaintiff filed his amended complaint and the Company filed its Motion to Dismiss on January 26, 2026. A hearing took place on April 20, 2026, pursuant to which the motion was denied. The Company’s answer was filed on May 22, 2026. On June 25, 2026, the district court granted the Company’s motion to certify the matter for interlocutory appeal. Proceedings are stayed pending that appeal. On July 6, 2026, the Company filed a petition to the Ninth Circuit asking the court to accept the appeal. The Ninth Circuit has yet to rule on the Company’s request.

On May 7, 2026, a complaint for patent infringement was filed by Videotex LLC against Rumble Canada Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The complaint alleges that Rumble Canada Inc. has and continues to infringe a patent issued to the plaintiff in 2020. The Company has since settled this matter out of court.

On April 20, 2026, the Company was served with a complaint from James H. Dillard, II in the Nevada District Court alleging contributory and vicarious copyright infringement against the Company. The plaintiff amended it the complaint before the Company filed an answer. The Company has not been served with the amended complaint.

A trademark dispute was filed by North Data GmbH (“North Data”) against NDAG in August 2023. North Data alleges that NDAG’s use of its company name “Northern Data AG” and certain associated trademarks infringed North Data’s trademark “North Data.” The Hamburg Regional Court (Landgericht Hamburg) issued a ruling in February 2024, partially granting North Data’s claims by ordering NDAG to cease using contested marks for specific goods and services, consent to deletion of its company name in the commercial register, and provide damages compensation with the amount to be determined following disclosure and accounting by North Data. NDAG filed an appeal in May 2024 and simultaneously initiated non-use cancellation proceedings against North Data’s EU trademark at the European Union Intellectual Property Office (the “EUIPO”) in April 2024, along with non-use cancellation proceedings against North Data’s German trademark at the German Patent and Trademark Office (the “German PTO”). NDAG also filed partial disclaimers to narrow the scope of its trademark registrations for certain goods and services. On April 29, 2026, the German PTO ordered cancellation of the German trademark for all goods and services except “Information on Business Matters.” North Data has appealed this decision to the German Federal Patent Court. On June 4, 2026, the Hamburg Court of Appeals (Oberlandesgericht Hamburg) stayed the appeal pending the final rulings by the EUIPO and the German PTO.

See Note 19 (Commitments and Contingencies) to the condensed consolidated interim financial statements (which is incorporated by reference into this Part II, Item 1) for information relating to certain VAT decisions issued by the Swedish Tax Authority to certain subsidiaries of Northern Data, each of which has been appealed by the relevant Northern Data subsidiary.

As to each of the above lawsuits, the Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims asserted and, except as expressly noted above, intends to defend itself vigorously. However, litigation is inherently unpredictable, and we cannot predict the outcome of these matters. At this time, we cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, and accordingly no liability has been recorded.