Contingencies | Note 9 – Contingencies Legal Proceedings From time to time, the Company may become involved in lawsuits and other legal proceedings that arise in the course of business. Litigation is subject to inherent uncertainties, and it is not possible to predict the outcome of litigation with total confidence. Other than what is disclosed herein, the Company is currently not aware of any legal proceedings or potential claims against it whose outcome would be likely, individually or in the aggregate, to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition, operating results, or cash flows. Social Reality Inc. v. YayYo, Inc. This action was filed on February 11, 2020, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles. Plaintiff Social Reality Inc. is a media company that the Company had contracted with to provide certain specified services. Plaintiff has sued the Company for breach of contract and related causes of action, arising from claims that the Company has failed to pay for outstanding invoices for services rendered, which the Company disputes. The plaintiff filed a motion for prejudgment attachment which was heard on July 28, 2020. The Superior Court denied the writ of attachment on the merits. The parties had a case management conference in October 2020. The Company believes that it has both valid defenses and counterclaims to the lawsuit, and will vigorously defend against it. Anthony Davis v. YayYo, Inc., and Ramy El-Batrawi This action was filed on March 5, 2020, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles. Plaintiff Anthony Davis acted as the Company’s Chief Executive Officer from approximately December 2016 through April 2017 Mr. El-Batrawi is the founder of the Company and our current Chief Executive Officer and one of our directors, and was involved, the complaint alleges, in Plaintiff’s hiring and termination. As part of his severance compensation, Mr. Davis was granted stock options in the Company. Mr. Davis claims that the Company breached its agreement to award him certain stock options and includes a claim for wage and hour violations. The lawsuit also seeks declaratory and injunctive relief. Mr. Davis also included a claim under California Unfair Practices Act. The Company denies all liability, asserts that it has paid Davis all amounts due to him under his separation agreement with the Company, and intends to vigorously defend against this lawsuit. Ivan Rung v. YayYo, Inc., Ramy El-Batrawi, et al., 20STCV27876 This action was filed on July 22, 2020, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles. Plaintiff Ivan Rung claimed to have purchased the Company’s stock and purported to bring a securities class action on behalf of all purchasers of the Company’s stock, pursuant to the Registration Statement and Prospectus filed with the SEC in connection with the Company’s November 13, 2019 initial public stock offering (“IPO”). The complaint alleged misrepresentations and material omissions in its IPO-related disclosure. In its answer, the Company denied liability and asserted that it accurately and completely disclosed all material facts and occurrences, including adverse ones, in its Registration Statement, related public filings and other public statements, and further asserted that the Complaint’s alleged violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), are baseless. Plaintiff’s counsel voluntarily dismissed this action on August 31, 2020, after admitting that Mr. Rung was not a suitable class representative. Instead plaintiff’s counsel are pursuing the highly similar case brought by Michael Vanbecelaere, as described below . Michael Vanbecelaere v. YayYo, Inc., Ramy El-Batrawi, et al., 20STCV28066 This action was filed on July 23, 2020, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, also as a purported class action. Plaintiff Michael Vanbecelaere claims to have purchased the Company’s stock “traceable to the IPO” and brings a securities class action pursuant to Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act on behalf of all purchasers of the Company’s stock. The complaint alleges that there were materially false statements and material omissions in the Registration Statement and Prospectus filed with the SEC and provided to prospective investors in connection with the Company’s IPO on November 13, 2019. The Company denies liability and asserts that it accurately and completely disclosed all material facts and occurrences, including adverse ones, in its IPO-related registration statement and related public filings, and that the Complaint’s alleged violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act are baseless. The Company intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit. Jason Hamlin v. YayYo, Inc., Ramy El-Batrawi, et al., 20-cv-8235 (SVW) and William Koch v. YayYo, Inc., Ramy El-Batrawi, et al, 20-cv-8591 (SVW) These two actions were filed on September 9, 2020 and September18, 2020, respectively, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, both cases as purported class actions. Plaintiffs Jason Hamlin and William Koch each claim to have purchased the Company’s stock “traceable to the IPO” and likein the pending state court action described immediately above, bring this securities class action pursuant to Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act on behalf of all purchasers of the Company’s stock. The complaint alleges that there were materially false statements and material omissions in the registration statement and prospectus filed with the SEC and provided to prospective investors in connection with the Company’s IPO on November 13, 2019 The defendants include directors of the company and the underwriters of the IPO, Westpark Capital and Aegis Capital Corp. The federal court has now consolidated the two matters for all purposes, and an initial status conference has been scheduled and held. As with the state court case described above, the Company denies liability and asserts that it accurately and completely disclosed all materially adverse facts, events and occurrences in its IPO-related registration statement and related public filings, and that the complaint’s alleged violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 are baseless. The Company intends to vigorously defend these lawsuits in federal court. |