CEA Industries Inc.

From time to time, in the normal course of business, the Company is subject to claims and legal proceedings. Litigation is inherently unpredictable, and the Company’s assessments may change as matters progress. The Company expenses legal fees as incurred and records a liability for contingent losses when it is both probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount can be reasonable estimated. An unfavorable outcome to any matter, if material, could adversely affect the Company’s financial condition, liquidity or results of operations.

On February 24, 2026, Abraham Gomez, an individual, filed a civil complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Tulare, captioned Abraham Gomez v. CEA Industries, Inc., et al., (Case No. VCU331863), against the Company and Hans Thomas, a director of the Company. The complaint asserts various claims against the defendants, including claims for fraud, promissory estoppel, quantum meruit and unjust enrichment, arising from alleged investment-related discussions and alleged services purportedly performed for the benefit of the Company. The plaintiff seeks damages, including compensatory damages according to proof (which the complaint alleges exceed approximately $2.75 million), together with interest, attorneys’ fees, costs and other relief. As of March 13, 2026, the Company has not yet filed its response to the complaint but intends to defend the action vigorously. At this preliminary stage of the matter, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, that may result from the proceeding.

On or about April 17, 2024, Optima Consulting Services, LLC (the “Claimant”), a client of the Company under an equipment and engineering contract, notified the Company of a potential claim and demanded mediation. On or about October 28, 2024, Claimant asserted claims for negligent/defective design and breach of warranty, alleging damages exceeding $2.0 million. The Company denied the claims, believing it satisfied all contractual obligations and that any issues were attributable to Claimant and/or third parties. The matter was mediated under the AAA process. Effective May 9, 2025, the parties entered into a settlement agreement under which all claims were resolved for a payment of $0.3 million by the Company. This settlement payment was funded by the Company’s insurance coverage, except for $35 thousand representing the deductibles, which was paid by the Company.

On October 20, 2023, Sweet Cut Grow, LLC and Green Ice, LLC (collectively, “Claimant”), clients of the Company under an equipment contract and engineering contract, filed a demand for arbitration asserting claims for breach of contract, breach of warranty, and unjust enrichment, and seeking $1.0 million in damages, plus interest. The Company denies the claims and has asserted a counterclaim. The Company believes it fulfilled all its contractual obligations and that any alleged issues related to the negligence of a third-party supplier.

The parties are required to arbitrate under the rules of the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”). The arbitration is expected to be heard in Denver, Colorado, in 2026 unless resolved earlier. The matter is currently in the discovery phase, and the parties are engaged in active settlement discussions. Legal fees will be borne by each party. In light of ongoing negotiations and the likelihood of settlement, the Company has accrued an estimate of $0.4 million to warranty expense.

Canadian Payroll Taxes

We have estimated approximately $0.2 million of potential liability related to Canadian payroll tax matters for the period 2020-2025. Other than this matter, no additional losses or provisions for loss contingency have been recorded to date. As discussed inNote 11 Related Party Note Payable and Related Party Convertible Note Payableabove*,*any tax liability assessed in connection with this matter will reduce, on a dollar for dollar basis, the repayment amount of the related vendor note issued to the former owners of Fat Panda.