Note 14. Commitments and Contingencies

Indemnification Agreements

The Company enters into indemnification provisions under its agreements with other entities in its ordinary course of business, typically with business partners, customers, landlords, lenders and lessors. Under these provisions, the Company generally indemnifies and holds harmless the indemnified party for losses suffered or incurred by the indemnified party as a result of the Company’s activities or, in some cases, as a result of the indemnified party’s activities under the agreement. The maximum potential amount of future payments the Company could be required to make under these indemnification provisions is unlimited. The Company has not incurred material costs to defend lawsuits or settle claims related to these indemnification agreements. As a result, the Company believes the estimated fair value of these agreements is minimal. Accordingly, the Company has no liabilities recorded for these agreements as of September 30, 2024 and December 31, 2023.

Digital Securities

In 2018, the Company commenced an offering and issuance (the “LDC Offering”) of 285 million revenue participation interests (the “Digital Securities”) of the net raffle revenue of LDC Crypto Universal Public Company Limited (“LDC”). The Digital Securities do not have any voting rights, redemption rights, or liquidation rights, nor are they tied in any way to other equity securities of LDC or the Company nor do they otherwise hold any rights that a holder of equity securities of LDC or the Company may have or that a holder of traditional equity securities or capital stock may have. Rather, each of the holders of the Digital Securities has a pro rata right to receive 7% of the net raffle revenue. If the net raffle revenue is zero for a given period, holders of the Digital Securities are not eligible to receive any cash distributions from any raffle sweepstakes of LDC for such period. For the years ended December 31, 2023 and December 31, 2022, the company did not incur any obligations to the holders of the outstanding Digital Securities. For the year ended December 31, 2021, the Company incurred an obligation to pay an aggregate amount of approximately $5,632 to holders of the outstanding Digital Securities. The Company did not satisfy any of those obligations during the three months ended September 30, 2024 or the years ended December 31, 2023, 2022, or 2021.

Leases

The Company leased office space in Spicewood, Texas which expired January 31, 2024 and had continued to utilize that facility on a month-to-month basis with monthly rent of $1,669 per month until August 31, 2024. On September 1, 2024, the company moved its headquarters to Fort Worth, Texas under a membership agreement with monthly cost of $154. Additionally, the Company has leased retail space in Waco, TX which expires on December 31, 2024 with monthly rent of $2,434. The Company also leases a campus for Sports.com in Boca Raton Florida for $25,000 per month under a 12 month lease agreement that commenced on August 1, 2024 and continues thru July 31, 2025. For the nine months ended September 30, 2024 and 2023 rent expense was $169,831 and $98,558, respectively.

As of September 30, 2024, future minimum rent payments due under non-cancellable leases are as follows:

Schedule of Future Minimum Rent Payments Due Under Non-Cancellable Leases 

Litigation and Other Loss Contingencies

As of September 30, 2024, there were no pending proceedings that are deemed to be materially detrimental. The Company is a party to legal proceedings in the ordinary course of its business. The Company believes that the nature of these proceedings is typical for a company of its size and scope. See Part II, Item 1 for additional information.

The Company is from time to time a party to various lawsuits, claims and other legal proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of business. The Company is a party to several material legal proceedings, which are described below. The outcome of litigation is inherently uncertain. If one or more legal matters were resolved against the Company in a reporting period for amounts in excess of management’s expectations, the Company’s financial condition and operating results for that reporting period could be materially adversely affected.

J. Streicher

On July 29, 2022, the Company filed its original Verified Complaint for Breach of Contract and Specific Performance (the “Streicher Complaint”) against J. Streicher Financial, LLC (“Streicher”) in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the “Chancery Court”), styled AutoLotto, Inc. dba Lottery.com v. J. Streicher Financial, LLC (Case No. 2022-0661-MTZ). In the Streicher Complaint, the Company alleged that Streicher breached the contract entered into by the parties on March 9, 2022 and demanded that Streicher return $16,500,000 it owes to the Company. On September 26, 2022, the Chancery Court entered an order in favor of the Company, Granting with Modifications Company’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment in the amount of $16,500,000 (the “Streicher Judgment”). On October 27, 2022, the Chancery Court further awarded the Company $397,037 in attorney’s fees (the “Fee Order”). On November 15, 2022, the Company initiated efforts against Streicher to seek collections on the Judgment. On December 8, 2022, the Company’s prior attorney Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, LLP (“Skadden”) filed its Combined Motion to Withdraw as Counsel and For a Charging Lien in amount of $3,024,201 for legal fees unpaid by Company (“Skadden’s Motion”). On December 30, 2022, the Company filed its response to Skadden’s Motion, alleging that the Chancery Court should deny Skadden’s Motion for a Charging Lien as a matter of law or, in the alternative, limit the charging lien to the amount of the attorneys’ fees awarded by the Fee Order. As of the date of this Report, the Chancery Court has not set Skadden’s Motion for an oral hearing, nor has it entered an order on the motion. On January 20, 2023, faced with post-judgment discovery and depositions, Streicher remitted a partial payment towards the Judgment in the amount of $75,000. On February 13, 2023, Streicher made another payment towards the Judgment in the amount of $50,000 and had agreed to make another payment in the amount of $75,000 on February 28, 2023, which it failed to make. The Company intends to fully collect on the Judgment and shall pursue all legal and equitable means to enforce the Judgment against Streicher until the Judgment is fully satisfied. See “Item 1A. Risk Factors - Legal Proceedings Risks - We may not recover amounts owed to us from J. Streicher Financial, LLC” for further information, as filed on form 10-K/A for fiscal 2023, on September 24, 2024.

Preston Million Class Action

On August 19, 2022, Preston Million filed a Class Action Complaint (the “Class Action Complaint”) against the Company and certain former officers and directors of the Company in the United States District Court for Southern District of New York (the “SDNY”), styled Preston Million, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated vs. Lottery.com, Inc. f/k/a Trident Acquisitions Corp., Anthony DiMatteo, Matthew Clemenson and Ryan Dickinson (Case No. 1:22-cv-07111-JLR). The Class Action Complaint alleged violations by all defendants of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) 15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b), 78t(a), as amended by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PSLRA”), U.S.C. § 78u-4 et seq. (collectively “Federal Securities Laws”). On November 18, 2022, the SNDY ordered the appointment of RTD Bros, LLC, Todd Benn, Tom Benn and Tomasz Rzedian (collectively “Lottery Investor Group”) as lead plaintiff and Glancy Prongay & Murray, LLP as lead counsel for plaintiffs and for the class in the case. On December 5, 2022, the Court stipulated a Scheduling Order in the case. On January 12, 2023, the Company’s legal counsel timely filed its Notice of Appearance. On January 31, 2022, plaintiffs filed their Amended Complaint adding Kathryn Lever, Marat Rosenberg, Vadim Komissarov, Thomas Gallagher, Gennadii Butkevych, Ilya Ponomarev as additional defendants in the case. The Amended Complaint alleges, among other things, that defendants made materially false and misleading statements in violation of Section 10(b),14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, reasonable costs and expenses including counsel fees and expert fees. Pursuant to the Scheduling Order, the Company filed its motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on April 3, 2023, under the newly consolidated caption and its proposed order to dismiss the matter. Plaintiffs were expected to file their opposition to the motion to dismiss no later than May 18, 2023, which would trigger the Company’s deadline to file its reply brief in support of their motion to dismiss no later than June 20, 2023. On February 6, 2024, the SDNY granted the Company’s Motion to Dismiss. On June 12, 2024, plaintiffs amended their complaint (the “Third Amended Complaint”). On July 12, 2024, the Company filed its motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint (the “MTD Third Amended Complaint”). On August 8, 2024, the plaintiffs filed their response in opposition to the MTD Third Amended Complaint. The Company filed its reply on August 22, 2024 to plaintiffs response in opposition to the MTD Third Amended Complaint.

TinBu Complaint

On March 13, 2023, John Brier, Bin Tu and JBBT, LLC (collectively, the “TinBu Plaintiffs”) filed its original complaint against Lottery.com, Inc. f /k/a AutoLotto, Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiary TinBu, LLC (“TinBu”) in the Circuit Court of the 13^th Judicial District in and for Hillsborough County, Florida (the “TinBu Complaint”). The Complaint alleges breach of contract(s) and misrepresentation with alleged damages in excess of $4.6 million. The parties agreed to extend the Company’s and its subsidiary’s deadline to respond until May 1, 2023. On May 2, 2023, the Company and its subsidiary retained local counsel who filed a Notice of Appearance on behalf of the Company and TinBu and filed a Motion for Enlargement requesting the Court to extend its deadline to file its initial response to the Complaint by an additional 30 days (the “Motion for Enlargement”). On May 5, 2023, Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Court Default (“Plaintiffs’ Motion for Default”), despite the Company’s Motion for Enlargement. As of the date of this Amended Report, the Motion for Enlargement has not been set for a hearing. The Company intends to oppose Plaintiffs’ Motion for Default. On May 9, 2023, Plaintiffs served Plaintiffs’ First Request for Admissions (the “RFA”) to the Company. On October 13, 2023, the Court granted the Defendants’ Motion to Stay Litigation and Discovery pending a ruling on its Motion to Compel Arbitration. On November 16, 2023, the Court granted Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration in Texas. The parties await a signed written order from the Court to that effect. The TinBu Plaintiffs have appealed the Court’s Order to Compel Arbitration in Texas.

On July 19, 2024, the Company received notice that the Tinbu Plaintiff’s requested a voluntary dismissal of their claims. The Tinbu Complaints have been voluntarily dismissed without prejudice by the District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida Second District and the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County, Florida, indicating that no further action will be pursued by the plaintiffs in Florida State Court at this time. The District Court of Appeals also denied the Tinbu Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees and costs. At present, other than what has already been recorded, the Company does not believe any additional liability is probable or estimable and therefor has not recorded any additional accruals related to this matter.

Global Gaming Data

On November 21, 2023, the Company and its wholly owned subsidiary TinBu, LLC (“TinBu”) (Company and TinBu collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed their First Amended Verified Complaint in Federal Court for the Middle District of Florida (“MDF”) against John J. Brier, Jr. (“Brier”), Bin Tu (“Tu”), and Global Gaming Data, LLC (“GGD”) (collectively, “Defendants”) for violations of the Federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”), the Florida Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“FUTSA”) and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (“FDUTPA”), and for breaches of contract and fiduciary duties, including the duty of loyalty, styled Lottery.com, Inc. f/k/a AutoLotto, Inc. and TinBu, LLC v. John J. Brier, Jr., Bin Tu, and Global Gaming Data, LLC (Case No.: 8:23-cv-2594-KKM-TGW) Defendants filed certain counterclaims against Plaintiffs. The Company’s request for a Temporary Restraining Order was denied by the MDF in February 2024. On June 11, 2024 the MDF denied Plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss. On June 25, 2024, Plaintiffs’ filed its answer to Defendants’ counterclaim(s). On July 10, 2024, the MDF entered a case management and scheduling order with a trial setting for October 2025. The parties are scheduled to attend a court ordered mediation on December 5, 2024. At present, other than what has already been recorded, the Company does not believe any additional liability is probable or estimable and therefor has not recorded any additional accruals related to this matter.

Woodford Eurasia Assets, Ltd.

Woodford Eurasia Assets, Ltd. (“Woodford”) filed a complaint in the High Court of Justice in London chancery Division. October 16, 2023, The High Court of Justice in London Chancery Division (“the Court”) dismissed an application for injunctive relief initiated by Woodford against the Company. (Case: FL-2023-000023. Woodford Eurasia Assets Limited v Lottery.com Inc.) The Court characterized Woodford’s application as “fundamentally misconceived” and ordered Woodford to pay the Company’s legal costs. Woodford subsequently, on the Judges’ recommendation, withdrew the proceedings.

Woodford filed an additional action in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware on February 14, 2024 in Case No. 23-1317-GBW. Woodford subsequently filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice, which stated that Woodford provides notice of dismissal of all claims without prejudice against Defendants Lotttery.com and its directors.

With the dismissal of this lawsuit by Woodford, no further action is required by Lottery.com or its directors at this time. The Company is determining its next course of action in resolving any further matters regarding Woodford.

The validity and application of the Woodford Loan Agreement Amendment is disputed by the Company.

Despite requests from the Company, Woodford has repeatedly among other things: failed to prove the amounts loaned to the Company or claimed to have been advanced by Woodford to the Company; failed to indicate if it would accept accelerated payment of those verified amounts; failed to provide an anti-money laundering acceptable bank account to which payment could be made by the Company and failed to explain multiple failures to respond to requests for other funding to be accepted in the context of the Woodford Loan Agreement; failed to respond to requests for funding under the accordion facility of the Woodford Loan Agreement; and failed to respond to allegations of money laundering and conspiracy to defraud the Company and the matter has been referred to the Company’s legal counsel. At present, other than what has already been recorded, the Company does not believe any additional liability is probable or estimable and therefor has not recorded any additional accruals related to this matter.

McTurk

On June 10, 2024, the Company and Matthew McGahan (“McGahan”) (Company and McGahan collectively, “Defendants”) filed their Notice of Removal and No Answer Motion to Dismiss a state court complaint filed by Sharon A. McTurk (“McTurk”), Rutherford Enterprises, LLC (“Rutherford”), SJB Solutions, LLC (“SJB”) and Astra Supply Chain, LLC (“Astra”) McTurk, Rutherford, SJB and Astra (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) alleging fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation, aiding and abetting, and conspiracy against Defendants. On July 2, 2024, McGahan filed his Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction and Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim and Supporting Memorandum of Law (“Motions to Dismiss”). On July 19, 2024, Plaintiffs filed their response to the Motions to Dismiss. On October 29, 2024, the Court denied Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery Pending Resolution of Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss. At present, other than what has already been recorded, the Company does not believe any additional liability is probable or estimable and therefor has not recorded any additional accruals related to this matter.

Honey Tree

On September 4, 2024, Honey Tree Trading, LLC (“Honey Tree” or “Plaintiff”) filed a verified original complaint (the “Complaint”) against Lottery.com (“Lottery.com” or the “Company”) and directors Matthew Howard McGahan (“McGahan”), Christopher Gooding (“Gooding”), Paul Jordan (“Jordan”), Tamer Hassan (“Hassan”) and Warran Macal (“Macal” together with McGahan, Gooding, Jordan and Hassan, the “Individual Defendants” and, collectively Lottery.com, the “Defendants”) in Delaware Chancery Court alleging, amongst other things, breach of contract by the Company with respect to certain notes and warrants and breach of fiduciary duties by the Individual Defendants. (CA. No. 2024-0921-NAC: styled Honey Tree Trading, LLC v. Lottery.com Inc., et al.). On October 10 ,2024, Honey Tree amended its Complaint by filing an amended verified complaint (the “Amended Complaint”) and a motion to expedite proceedings (the “Motion”). On November 6, 2024, at a hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion (the “Hearing”) and on the issue of breach of fiduciary duties against the Individual Defendants, Honey Tree’s counsel informed the Court that, “[t]here is no question that Honey Tree is presently a shareholder and was a shareholder at the time it presented its pleading.” On November 12, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel informed the Court that “Honey Tree did own shares prior to the filing of the Amended Complaint but sold them prior to that filing; and (ii) Honey Tree did not subsequently purchase shares of Lottery.com until November 7, 2024, the day after the [H]earing,” (Plaintiff’s Admission”). Following Plaintiff’s Admission on November 13, 2024, Plaintiff dismissed without prejudice its claims against Hassan and Macal (the “Dismissal”). The Court ordered the Dismissal on November 15, 2024. At present, other than what has already been recorded, the Company does not believe any additional liability is probable or estimable and therefor has not recorded any additional accruals related to this matter.