Rush Street Interactive, Inc.

From time to time we become involved in legal proceedings concerning matters arising in connection with the conduct of our business activities. These proceedings may be at varying stages, and many of these proceedings may seek an indeterminate amount of damages. We regularly evaluate the status of the legal proceedings in which we are involved to assess whether a loss is probable or there is a reasonable possibility that a loss or an additional loss may have been incurred and to determine if accruals are appropriate. If accruals are not appropriate, we further evaluate each legal proceeding to assess whether an estimate of the possible loss or range of possible loss can be made.

On October 9, 2025, Nathan Jennings (“Plaintiff”) filed a Verified Stockholder Class Action Complaint (“Complaint”) in the Delaware Court of Chancery (the “Court”), styled Nathan Jennings v. Rush Street Interactive, Inc., C.A. No. 2025-1153-LWW (the “Action”). The Complaint alleged that Section 6.3 (the “Challenged Provision”) of the Company’s then-operative certificate of incorporation violated Section 141(k) of the Delaware General Corporation Law. Without making any concession as to the merits of Plaintiff’s claim, and solely to avoid the risks and costs of further litigation, the Board of Directors agreed to propose an amendment to the Challenged Provision (the “Amendment”) at our next annual meeting of stockholders (the “Annual Meeting”) to moot Plaintiff’s claim.

The Company proposed the Amendment and, at the Annual Meeting held on June 3, 2026, our stockholders voted to approve the Amendment.

On July 10, 2026, the Court entered a stipulated Order dismissing the Action as moot and retaining jurisdiction to determine Plaintiff’s counsel’s application for an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses (the “Dismissal Order”). The Dismissal Order was entered by the Court without a finding of wrongdoing by the Company.

Following entry of the Dismissal Order, the parties engaged in arm’s-length negotiations, pursuant to which we and/or our insurer(s) have agreed to pay Plaintiff’s counsel $120,000 in attorneys’ fees (inclusive of expenses) (the “Mootness Fee”) in full settlement for any claim by Plaintiff or Plaintiff’s counsel for an award of fees, costs and expenses in connection with the Action. The Court has not and will not pass judgment on the Mootness Fee.

In addition to the above action, we are subject to various other legal proceedings and claims that arise in the ordinary course of business. In our opinion, the amount of ultimate liability with respect to any of these actions is unlikely to materially affect our financial condition, results of operations or liquidity, though the outcomes could be material to our operating results for any particular period, depending, in part, upon the operating results for such period.