NOTE 12 - COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Purchase Commitments

Many of the Company’s vendors require product deposits when a purchase order is placed for goods or fulfillment services related to inventory requirements. The Company’s history of product deposits with its inventory vendors, creates an implicit purchase commitment equaling the total expected product acceptance cost in excess of the product deposit. As of March 31, 2026, the Company approximates its implicit purchase commitments to be $592 thousand.

Legal Matters

In the normal course of business operations, the Company may become involved in various legal matters. As of March 31, 2026, other than as set forth below, the Company’s management does not believe that there are any potential legal matters that could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position.

On August 27, 2025, a purported shareholder filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (“EDNY”) against the Company, the Company’s Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Schreiber, and the Company’s former Chief Financial Officer, Mr. Benathen, (collectively, the “Defendants”), captioned Johnston v. LifeMD, Inc., et al., Case No. 25-cv-04761, alleging: (i) violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the Defendants for making false and misleading statements; and (ii) violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by the individual officer defendants as alleged control persons. On October 24, 2025, the EDNY granted the joint motion to transfer the class action complaint from the EDNY to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (“SDNY”). On November 24, 2025, the SDNY appointed a Lead Plaintiff. On January 30, 2026, the Lead Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on March 27, 2026; Lead Plaintiff’s opposition is due on May 15, 2026; and Defendants’ reply brief is due on June 12, 2026.

In the months following filing of the class action complaint, four putative shareholder derivative complaints were filed, captioned: (i) Greenberg v. Schreiber et al., Case No. 25-cv-5075 (EDNY), (ii) Poulos v. Schreiber et al., Case No. 25-cv-5197 (EDNY), (iii) Shibata v. Schreiber et al., Case No. 25-cv-5284-JMW (EDNY) and (iv) Ellis v. Schreiber, et al. 125-cv-09343 (SDNY). These complaints alleged violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act, breach of fiduciary duties, aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, and violations of Exchange Act Sections 10(b) and 21D by the Company’s officers and directors. The shareholder derivative complaints are based primarily on the same alleged conduct underlying the class action complaint described above, and seek damages in an unspecified amount and other relief. On December 11, 2025, the three derivative actions filed in the EDNY were consolidated and stayed pending a ruling on the motion to dismiss in the securities class action, including any related appeals. On December 17, 2025, the derivative action filed in the SDNY was stayed on the same terms. While the Company does not believe that any of the class action or shareholder derivative complaints will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, results of operations and financial condition, failure to obtain a favorable resolution of these complaints could have such a material adverse effect.