What changed in this filing

/stocks — the workspaceLOADING

Item 3. Legal Proceedings

2026-03-05 compared with 2025-03-25 · 88 added, 57 removed, 50 unchanged (74% of the section changed)

10 unchanged sentences

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.

The court heard arguments

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 has filed a notice of

appeal to the U.S.

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The Company’s appeal brief was filed on September 10, 2025.

opposition brief was filed on November 10, 2025 and the Company’s reply was filed on December 1, 2025.

In addition, on November

12, 2025, 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.

In addition, in May 2024,

6 unchanged sentences

Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) transferred the case to the existing proceeding, In re:

Google Digital Advertising

Antitrust Litigation (JPML No.

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.

Google Digital Advertising Antitrust

Litigation (JPML No.

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 case is ongoing.

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

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

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.

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 USD 419.0 million (based on the value ascribed to our Class A Common Shares in the ND Business

Combination), together with other damages including punitive damages and costs.

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.

A mediation session was held in April 2025.

No settlement

The Company filed its third amended complaint on January 30, 2026.

The case remains in discovery.

Along with co-plaintiff Eugene

5 unchanged sentences

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

that appeal remains

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.

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.

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.

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 a 2-1 decision,

the court held that if the law were interpreted in accordance with the Company’s position, it would be unconstitutional;

they believe a different interpretation of the law is possible and have certified the questions to the state high court to interpret the

law, putting off a federal appellate ruling on constitutionality.

The Company’s brief was filed with the State of New York Court

of Appeals on February 4, 2026.

The injunction remains in place while the state court reviews.

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

District Court for the District of Delaware naming Rumble and an unaffiliated entity doing

business as “The Specter Report” as defendants.

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.

infringement and one count of slander and seeks injunctive relief and USD 900,000 in damages from Rumble.

We have not yet been formally

served with the lawsuit and believe that the allegations are meritless.

The court dismissed the case against the Company in May 2025.

The plaintiff appealed to the U.S.

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

In November 2024, we filed

8 unchanged sentences

plaintiffs’ summary judgment motions were filed on March 7, 2025.

In February 2025, Rumble filed

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.

state of California filed its appeal brief on January 12, 2026.

The Company’s answer will be filed on March 11, 2026.

In February 2025, we filed

a complaint and a request for a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) in the U.S.

5 unchanged sentences

entity was required to enforce them.

We filed an amended complaint

on June 6, 2025.

We filed a request to supplement the amended complaint on July 13, 2025 in response to a new illegal blocking order from

Justice Moraes and filed a further amended complaint on July 16, 2025, which the Company attempted to serve via the Hague Service Convention.

The Company filed a motion for alternative service on February 2, 2026.

In April 2025, along with Rebel News, we filed a lawsuit in the Ontario

Superior Court of Justice against Canada, Canada Lands Company, et al 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.

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 moved 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.

The plaintiff responded on September 18, 2025, to which the Company replied on October 9, 2025.

On November 6, 2025,

the Court granted the Company’s Motion to Dismiss, with leave to amend.

On December 5, 2025, the Plaintiff filed his amended complaint.

The Company filed its Motion to Dismiss on January 26, 2026.

As with prior privacy-related lawsuits, we believe that the plaintiff’s

allegations are meritless.

Mine Safety Disclosures

1 unchanged sentence

Compared sentence by sentence after normalising whitespace, quotation marks, case and digits, so re-formatting and restated figures do not read as changed language. Wording changes appear as one removal and one addition. The current filing and the prior one are authoritative.

What changed 10-K

Item 3. Legal Proceedings