Item 3. Legal Proceedings
Item 3. Legal Proceedings
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. 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. Trial was scheduled for May 2025, but has
been moved to July 7, 2025.
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 facts are resolved in the Multidistrict Litigation proceeding, its
case would be transferred back to the Northern District of California for trial. A second amended compliant will be filed during the week
of March 24, 2025.
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 $419.0 million
(based on the value ascribed to the shares of Rumble in the Business Combination), together with other damages including punitive damages
and costs. The case is currently in discovery. 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. Mediation is scheduled for April 14, 2025.
37
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; that appeal remains
pending.
In November 2023, we filed
a defamation lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida against Nandini Jammi and Claire Atkin, co-founders
of an organization that targets news outlets and platforms that do not adhere to their political worldview. The lawsuit seeks actual,
presumed, and punitive damages against Jammi and Atkin for their defamatory statements about Rumble, in addition to all costs and fees
associated with the case. We have also asked the court to prohibit the defendants from repeating their false statements. In May 2024,
the defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The court held a hearing on that motion on November 7, 2024. Both
parties filed motions for summary judgment. The defendants filed a notice to withdraw their consent to a joint motion to extend the case
deadlines by six months and also withdrew their motion to dismiss. Rumble subsequently filed a motion to deny defendants’ motion
for summary judgment.
In August 2024, we filed an
antitrust lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas against the World Federation of Advertisers, WPP plc,
and GroupM Worldwide LLC alleging a conspiracy to withhold advertising revenue from Rumble and other digital media platforms. The lawsuit
seeks a declaration that the defendants’ conduct is illegal, a permanent injunction against the conduct, damages, interest, and
legal fees, among other relief. In September 2024, we filed an amended complaint, which added Diageo plc as a defendant. The defendants’
filed a motion to dismiss on February 21, 2025. Rumble’s answer is due on April 15, 2025.
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 Rumble. We have not yet been formally served
with the lawsuit and believe that the allegations are meritless.
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.
In February 2025, Rumble 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.
Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures
Not Applicable.
38
Part
II