SurgePays, Inc.

Evaluation of disclosure controls and procedures

Under the PCAOB standards, a control deficiency exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent or detect misstatements on a timely basis. A significant deficiency is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control over financial reporting that is less severe than a material weakness, yet important enough to merit the attention by those responsible for oversight of the company’s financial reporting. A material weakness is a deficiency, or combination of deficiencies, in internal control over financial reporting, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the company’s annual or interim financial statements will not be prevented or detected on a timely basis.

Under the supervision and with the participation of our management, including our principal executive officer and principal financial officer, we conducted an evaluation of our disclosure controls and procedures, as such term is defined under Rule 13a-15(e) and Rule 15d-15(e) promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (Exchange Act). Based upon that evaluation, our chief executive officer and chief financial officer concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were not effective as of March 31, 2026.

Changes in Internal Control over Financial Reporting

During the period ended March 31, 2026, there were no changes in our internal controls over financial reporting, which were identified in connection with our management’s evaluation required by paragraph (d) of rules 13a-15 and 15d-15 under the Exchange Act, that materially affected, or is reasonably likely to have a material effect, on our internal control over financial reporting.

PART II - OTHER INFORMATION

From time to time, we may be engaged in various lawsuits and legal proceedings in the ordinary course of our business. Except as described below, we are currently not aware of any legal proceedings the ultimate outcome of which, in our judgment based on information currently available, would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

The following is a summary of threatened, pending, asserted or unasserted claims against us or any of our wholly owned subsidiaries for which there have been material developments:

Blue Skies Connections, LLC, and True Wireless, Inc. v. SurgePays, Inc., et. al.

District Court of Oklahoma County, OK, CJ-2021-5327, filed on December 13, 2021. Plaintiffs’ petition alleges breach of a Stock Purchase Agreement by SurgePays, SurgePhone Wireless, LLC, and Kevin Brian Cox (“Defendants”), and makes other allegations related to SurgePays’ consulting work with Jonathan Coffman, formerly a True Wireless employee. The petition requests injunctive relief, general damages, punitive damages, attorney fees and costs for alleged breach of contract, tortious interference with a business relationship, and fraud. Blue Skies alleged the Defendants are in violation of their non-competition and non-solicitation agreements related to the sale of True Wireless from SurgePays to Blue Skies. Defendants filed various dispositive motions with the Court demonstrating Oklahoma state law does not recognize non-compete agreements and non-solicitation agreements in the manner alleged by Plaintiffs, and the Court granted these motions, finding the non-solicitation and non-competition clauses in the Stock Purchase Agreement void as a matter of Oklahoma law. Defendants then filed additional dispositive motions on Plaintiffs’ claims in tort and equity, which the Court granted in part based on its prior rulings. Plaintiffs took the position the Court granting Defendants’ dispositive motions on these material issues only leaves partial contract claims that are inextricably intertwined with the remaining claims and defenses. Plaintiffs sought a certified interlocutory appeal of the Court’s orders. On March 10, 2025, the Oklahoma Supreme Court entered an order denying Plaintiffs’ Petition for Certiorari to review the certified interlocutory appeal. In December 2025, Judge Dishman recused himself from the case following a request from the Blue Skies and True Wireless parties and objection by SurgePays’ counsel. Judge Andrews has been assigned to the matter and has set remaining matters for status and briefing schedules on outstanding motions in the trial court. The case will now proceed in the district court on the parties’ remaining claims. Presently, there is no trial date.

In the Circuit Court of Tennessee for the 30th Judicial District at Memphis, Docket # CT-3219-23. On August 8, 2023, a complaint was filed by SurgePays for breach of a promissory note by Blue Skies Connections, LLC. The note at issue is dated June 14, 2021, and requires Blue Skies Connections to repay the principal sum of $176,850.56, by monthly payments of $7,461.37 commencing on June 1, 2023. Blue Skies Connections has failed to make any payments due under the terms of the note, and this breach entitles SurgePays to demand payment of the entire amount of the note together with all accrued interest. Blue Skies Connections responded by filing a Motion to Dismiss or, in the alternative, a Motion to Stay, taking the position that, under the prior suit pending doctrine, the subject promissory note is subject to the prior litigation instituted by Blue Skies Connections against SurgePays, styled Skies Connections, LLC and True Wireless, Inc. v. SurgePays, Inc., et al., Case No. CJ-2021-5327, District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. SurgePays elected to dismiss its complaint without prejudice and is in the process of evaluating re-filing the matter in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma.

SurgePays, Inc. et al. v. Fina et al., Case No. CJ-2022-2782, District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma

Plaintiffs SurgePays, Inc. and Kevin Brian Cox initiated this case against its former officer Mike Fina, his companies Blue Skies Connections, LLC, True Wireless, Inc., Government Consulting Solutions, Inc., Mussell Communications LLC, and others. This case also arises from the June 2021 transaction by which SurgePays sold True Wireless to Blue Skies. During the litigation of CJ-2021-5327 described above, SurgePays learned information that showed Mike Fina breached his duties owed to True Wireless during his employment and consulting work for True Wireless prior to SurgePays’ sale of True Wireless to Blue Skies. SurgePays alleges that Mike Fina conspired with the other defendants to damage True Wireless thereby harming the value of the company and causing its eventual sale at a greatly reduced price. SurgePays asserts claims for (i) breach of contract; (ii) breach of fiduciary duty; (iii) fraud; (iv) tortious interference; and (v) unjust enrichment. At this stage, no defendant has asserted a counterclaim against SurgePays. SurgePays filed a Second Amended Petition on January 27, 2023. Defendants Fina, Blue Skies, True Wireless, and Government Consulting Solutions filed a Motion to Dismiss on March 10, 2023. On June 29, 2023, the Court granted the Motion to Dismiss, ruling the claims asserted are “derivative” and could only be asserted by the True Wireless entity now owed by Blue Skies. The Court rejected SurgePays’ request to certify this ruling for immediate appeal. Defendant Misty Garrett filed a Motion for Summary Judgment seeking the same relief as the Motion to Dismiss, which was granted by the Court. It is SurgePays’ intent to evaluate an additional options in the Court’s dismissal of Fina, Blue Skies, True Wireless, Government Consulting Solutions, and Misty Garrett. At this stage, no attempts at settlement have been made.

All claims against all parties have been adjudicated by the Court. SurgePays filed a Motion for New Trial, which was denied by the Court on February 20, 2025. SurgePays’ has filed an appeal of the Court’s dismissal of Fina, Blue Skies, True Wireless, Government Consulting Solutions, and summary judgment for Misty Garrett.

With regard to the appeal against Misty Garrett and Misty Garrett’s claims against SurgePays, Misty Garrett and SurgePays have entered into a Settlement Agreement and Release dated as of October 16, 2025 in which the parties have agreed to dismiss all matters in the courts and release each other from liability, with an agreement to file such dismissal documents at the in the respective courts.

SSB Communications, Inc., Plaintiff v SurgePays, Inc., and American Broadband & Telecommunications Company, Defendants, Case No. DC-26-07054

District Court 116 th Judicial District, Dallas County, Texas filed April 20, 2026. Plaintiff filed this collection suit seeking an amount over $250,000 but less than $1,000,000 for breach of contract for the provision of goods, plus interest, fees and costs. SurgePays, Inc.’s initial pleading is not due until May 25, 2026. At this time, SurgePays, Inc. is in settlement discussions with Co-Defendant, American Broadband & Telecommunications Company and the Plaintiff.

Ellenoff Grossman & Schole, LLP and SurgePays

Ellenoff Grossman & Schole LLP v. SurgePays, Inc., Index No. 651282/2026, Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, filed March 2, 2026. The action sought recovery of $234,151 in unpaid legal fees, plus costs and attorneys’ fees.

Effective April 7, 2026, the Company entered into a settlement agreement resolving all claims, pursuant to which the Company agreed to pay the total settlement amount of $234,151 in eight equal monthly installments of $29,269, commencing April 2026 and ending November 2026. All required installments have been paid to date. The settlement agreement provides for a default interest rate of 9% per annum on any overdue amounts and is secured by an Affidavit of Confession of Judgment held in escrow by the plaintiff, which may be filed upon an uncured payment default.