8. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

LITIGATION, DISPUTES AND SETTLEMENTS

The Company may be subject to lawsuits, investigations, intellectual property matters, claims and proceedings, including, but not limited to, contractual disputes with vendors and customers and liabilities related to employment, health and safety matters that may arise in the ordinary course of business. The Company accrues for losses that are both probable and reasonably estimable. Loss contingencies are subject to significant uncertainties and, therefore, determining the likelihood of a loss and/or the measurement of any loss can be complex and subject to change.

The Company believes it has recorded adequate provisions for any such lawsuits, investigations, claims, and proceedings as of June 30, 2025, and the Company believes it was not reasonably possible that a material loss had been incurred in excess of the amounts recognized in the consolidated financial statements. Given the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the ultimate outcome of the ongoing matters described herein cannot be predicted with certainty. While litigation is inherently unpredictable, the Company believes it has valid defenses with respect to the legal matters pending against it. However, future events or circumstances, currently unknown to management, may potentially have a material effect on the Company’s financial position, liquidity or results of operations in any future reporting period.

In September 2020, a shareholder derivative lawsuit, captioned Klein (derivatively on behalf of Blink Charging Co.) v. Farkas et al., Case No. 20- 19815CA01, was filed in Miami-Dade County Circuit Court seeking to pursue claims belonging to the Company against Blink’s Board of Directors and former Chief Financial Officer Michael Rama (the “Klein Lawsuit”). Blink is named as a nominal defendant. The Klein Lawsuit asserted that the Director defendants caused Blink to make certain statements at issue in a securities class action captioned Bush v. Blink Charging Co., et al., Case No. 20-cv-23527, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (the “Bush Lawsuit”), and, as a result, the Company incurred costs defending against the Bush Lawsuit and other unidentified investigations. The Bush Lawsuit was settled by the parties and a final judgment was entered in October 2024. The Klein Lawsuit asserted claims against the Director defendants for breach of fiduciary duties and corporate waste and against the defendants for unjust enrichment. Klein did not quantify the alleged damages in his complaint, but he sought damages sustained by the Company as a result of the defendants’ alleged breaches of fiduciary duties, corporate governance changes, restitution, and disgorgement of profits from the defendants and attorneys’ fees and other litigation expenses. In December 2020, another shareholder derivative action, captioned Bhatia (derivatively on behalf of Blink Charging Co.) v. Farkas et al., Case No. 20-27632CA01, was filed in Miami-Dade County Circuit Court against the same defendants in the Klein Lawsuit and asserted similar claims, as well as additional claims relating to the Company’s nomination, appointment and hiring of minorities and women and the Company’s decision to retain its outside auditor (the “Bhatia Lawsuit”). In June 2022, the court consolidated the Klein and Bhatia actions under the caption In re Blink Charging Company Stockholder Derivative Litigation, Lead Case No. 2020-019815-CA-01. In February 2022, a third shareholder derivative lawsuit, captioned McCauley (derivatively on behalf of Blink Charging Co.) v. Farkas et al., Case No. A-22-847894-C, was filed in Clark County, Nevada seeking to pursue claims belonging to the Company against Blink’s Board of Directors and Michael Rama (the “McCauley Lawsuit” and together with the Klein Lawsuit and the Bhatia Lawsuit, the “Derivative Actions”). Blink is named as a nominal defendant. The McCauley Lawsuit asserted similar claims and sought similar damages as the Klein Lawsuit.

Following a mediation in April 2024, the parties entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement (the “Settlement”) dated June 26, 2025. If it receives court approval, the Settlement will resolve the Derivative Actions in exchange for the Company undertaking certain corporate governance reforms, but does not require the director defendants to make any monetary payment as part of the Settlement. The Settlement includes a fee and expense award to plaintiffs’ counsel in the amount of $533,750 (the “Fee and Expense Award”). On June 30, 2025, plaintiffs’ counsel filed a motion asking the court to grant preliminary approval of the Settlement, which the court has granted on August 15, 2025. The court scheduled a final settlement hearing for October 27, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. at Courtroom 10D, Regional Justice Center, 200 Lewis Ave., Las Vegas, NV, 89155. In the meantime, the Derivative Actions remain stayed. The Company has not recorded an accrual related to these matters as of June 30, 2025, as the Company expects its insurance carriers to pay for the Fee and Expense Award.

BLINK CHARGING CO.

NOTES TO UNAUDITED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(in thousands, except for share and per share amounts)