17. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

Timothy Michaels

On February 24, 2022, Timothy Michaels, the former Chief Operating Officer of the Company, signed a Separation Agreement and Release (the “Separation Agreement”) in connection with the termination of his employment with the Company, which occurred on February 7, 2022.

On May 27, 2022, Mr. Michaels filed a complaint against the Company in the Fourth Judicial District Court, Hennepin County, Minnesota, alleging that the Company breached the Separation Agreement by including a restricted “lock-up” legend on shares of the Company’s common stock issued to Mr. Michaels pursuant to the Separation Agreement. The complaint also included counts alleging breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, issuer liability under Minn. Stat. § 336.8-401 for delay in removing or directing the Company’s transfer agent to remove the lock-up legend from the shares, conversion and civil theft.

The Company made a motion seeking dismissal of the conversion and civil theft counts, which was granted by the Fourth Judicial District Court, Hennepin County, Minnesota on October 31, 2022. On August 9, 2023, the Company moved for summary judgment on Mr. Michaels’ remaining claims. A jury trial commenced on January 23, 2024. During trial, on January 24, 2024, the Company filed a motion for judgement in favor of the Company as a matter of law, which was denied by the Court. On January 25, 2024, the jury in the lawsuit rendered a verdict against the Company awarding damages to Mr. Michaels in the amount of $585,976.25. On February 22, 2024, the Company filed a renewed motion for post-verdict judgment in favor of the Company as a matter of law. On February 26, 2024, the Judge in the lawsuit denied the renewed motion for post-verdict judgment. On March 25, 2024, Mr. Michaels filed a Notice and Application for Taxation of Costs and Disbursements. On March 26, 2024, the Company filed its Notice of Appeal. On March 26, 2024, Mr. Michaels served a motion for Pre-verdict and Prejudgment Interest. On March 27, 2024, a Notice of Entry of Judgment was filed and, on March 28, 2024, a Notice of Docketing of Judgment was entered. The Company appealed the verdict and the court of appeals affirmed the judgment in February 2025, which granted approximately $22,000 in additional damages to Mr. Michaels. On March 12, 2025, the Company petitioned the supreme court for review. On May 13, 2025, the supreme court denied the petition. On November 21, 2025, the Company tendered full payment of the judgment based on calculations of Mr. Michaels’ former counsel, but Mr. Michaels refused to recognize satisfaction of the judgment. On February 2, 2026, the Company filed a motion to compel satisfaction of the judgment and shortly thereafter tendered an additional $25,000 for post-judgment interest. On March 9 and 10, 2026, the Company filed motions to compel satisfaction of the same judgment docketed in California and to quash subpoenas served there. At March 31, 2026 and December 31, 2025, approximately $0 and $27,000, respectively, was accrued as a settlement payable. On April 2, 2026, the Minnesota court ordered the judgment satisfied. Mr. Michaels withdrew the subpoenas and satisfied the judgment in California. On April 17, 2026, the California court entered an order awarding the Company approximately $45,000 for its costs and attorneys’ fees incurred compelling satisfaction of the judgment. Mr. Michaels paid the award to the Company’s counsel and the matters in Minnesota and California are now concluded.

G&I IX Aviation LLC v. Teespring, Inc. et al.

Amaze Holding Company LLC is a defendant in G&I IX Aviation LLC v. Teespring, Inc. et al., Case No. 23-CI-00220 in Boone County Circuit Court, Kentucky. When Amaze acquired certain assets of Teespring, Inc., pursuant to an Asset Purchase Agreement in November 2022, Teespring, Inc. leased commercial property located at 1201 Aviation Boulevard, Hebron, Kentucky, owned by Plaintiff G&I IX Aviation LLC (“G&I”). During and after APA negotiations, Amaze attempted to assume the lease, but Plaintiff refused to consent to the assignment of the lease unless Amaze paid previous obligations the landlord claimed Teespring. Inc. owed. Ultimately, G&I and Amaze never signed a consent to assignment of the lease. Plaintiff provided a notice of default on December 15, 2022, and filed its complaint against Teespring, Inc. and Amaze on February 1, 2023. Plaintiff demands approximately $869,000 in unpaid rent plus attorneys’ fees On June 12, 2024, the court denied Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment against Amaze. Plaintiff filed a second motion for summary judgment on August 28, 2025. On February 13, 2026, the Court granted Plaintiff’s second motion for summary judgment and awarded liquidated damages in the amount of approximately $1.3 million, plus court costs and reasonable attorney fees in an amount to be determined, which shall bear post judgment interest at the 6% statutory rate. On March 20, 2026, Amaze requested that the Court reduce the award by approximately $205,000 in unreasonable fees and costs. Amaze plans to appeal the decision when it becomes final. At March 31, 2026 and December 31, 2025, approximately $1.3 million was accrued as a settlement payable.

Dubow Decorating, Inc. v. Amaze Software, Inc.

Amaze Software, Inc. is the Defendant and Counter-Plaintiff in Dubow Decorating, Inc. v. Amaze Software Inc., Case No. 05-CV-25-699, in the Benton County District Court, State of Minnesota, filed on April 16, 2025.  Dubow Decorating, Inc. (“Dubow”) was a vendor for Amaze and provided printing services. Dubow sued Amaze claiming $394,000 in damages for Amaze’s failure to pay certain invoices, and Amaze asserted several defenses based on quality of services, discrepancies with Dubow’s invoices and its admitted overbilling. Amaze also asserted counterclaims against Dubow for defamation and tortious interference with Amaze’s other vendor relationships. In November 2025, the Company settled the lawsuit for approximately $185,000 with monthly payments to be made through September 2026.

DinoCloud, Inc. v. Amaze Software, Inc.

Amaze Software, Inc. is the Defendant in DinoCloud, Inc. v. Amaze Software, Inc., Case No. N24C-02-496 PAW, in the Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County, filed on February 25, 2025 and served on the Company on April 28, 2025. Plaintiff alleges breach of contract, breach of good faith and fair dealing, detrimental reliance, and unjust enrichment and claims $202,000 in damages. The Company filed its answer and affirmative defenses on July 17, 2025. On May 6, 2026, the Company reached a preliminary agreement to resolve dispute for an estimated $200,000.

Baron App, Inc. dba Cameo v. Amaze Holding Company LLC

Amaze Holding Company LLC is the Defendant in Baron App, Inc., dba Cameo v. Amaze Holding Company LLC, Case No. 30-2025-01486631-CU-BC-NJC, in the Superior Court of California, County of Orange. Plaintiff filed the Complaint on May 30, 2025. Plaintiff alleges breach of contract and damages in subject to proof in excess of $140,000. Mercer Oak filed the Company’s Answer and Affirmative Defenses on July 15, 2025. An initial Case Management Conference took place October 28, 2025. As of March 2026, the parties have reached a tentative settlement, which they are working to document. At March 31, 2026 and December 31, 2025, approximately $140,000 was accrued as a settlement payable.