X Sues Bitcoin Influencers Over Alleged £207K Scheme

X Files UK High Court Lawsuit Alleging Coordinated Fraud Scheme

X Internet Unlimited Company and X Corp. have initiated legal proceedings in the Business and Property Courts of England and Wales under claim number BL-2026-001161, filing particulars of claim on September 17 that name two identified defendants—Vivek Kumar Sen and Zamyang Sherpa—alongside unidentified account operators described as “persons unknown.” The lawsuit alleges that a coordinated network of Bitcoin-focused accounts systematically manipulated engagement metrics to fraudulently qualify for and collect payments from X’s Creator Revenue Sharing program between August 2023 and February 2026. The claims have not been adjudicated, and no publicly accessible defense filing or court judgment responding to the September 17 particulars of claim was located as of September 21.

Six Primary Accounts Identified in Alleged Payout Network

The complaint centers on six primary accounts enrolled in Creator Revenue Sharing: @Vivek4real_, @Bitcoin_Teddy, @saylordocs, @TrendingBitcoin, @Kalshibacktest, and @PolyBackTest. X’s filing links payment accounts associated with the first three to Sen and the remaining three to Sherpa, while alleging that other people may have operated or controlled parts of the network. Three additional handles—@BTC_Vibes, @MrSuperBitcoin, and @Laserlump—appear in Annex A as accounts that allegedly repeatedly liked, replied to, and reposted material from the primary accounts as part of the same activity, with the company stating further investigation and disclosure could identify more accounts or incidents.

X claims the defendants operated the accounts “as a single coordinated network” to increase monetizable engagement. The company alleges substantially similar posts appeared across accounts within short periods while the accounts liked, reposted, and replied to one another’s material. Specific examples cited in the filing include: on August 13, @Vivek4real_, @saylordocs, and @Bitcoin_Teddy allegedly replied to the same third-party post within 31 seconds; on July 23, July 26, and August 3, @TrendingBitcoin, @Vivek4real_, and @Bitcoin_Teddy allegedly published matching content within minutes; and on August 5, @Vivek4real_ and @TrendingBitcoin allegedly published substantially similar posts only 11 seconds apart. X characterizes those activities as deliberate engagement manipulation, though the claims remain allegations presented by the company.

Financial Claims Exceed £207,000 with Additional Investigation Costs

The financial claim covers payments X says it made because the disputed accounts appeared eligible for Creator Revenue Sharing. The company’s schedule lists £74,332.44 for @Vivek4real_, approximately £50,065 plus a smaller payment converted from Paraguayan guaraní for @Bitcoin_Teddy, £49,441.91 for @saylordocs, £22,938.35 for @TrendingBitcoin, £3,490.71 for @Kalshibacktest, and £6,705.25 for @PolyBackTest—totaling no less than £207,384 in Creator Revenue Sharing losses. X estimates another £75,000 or more in investigation, analysis, remediation, and prevention expenses, though the filing notes that second amount was not yet fully known.

The complaint alleges the defendants supplied misleading information through associated payment accounts and used overlapping devices, software clients, cookies, and other identifiers. X claims some accounts were connected through financial details that did not match the apparent account operators. Those allegations form part of X’s case for deceit, unlawful-means conspiracy, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and knowing receipt connected with the older program. The filing seeks delivery or repayment of the disputed funds, damages, equitable or restitutionary compensation, interest under Section 35A of the Senior Courts Act 1981, legal costs, and any further relief the court considers appropriate. The September 17 pleading carries statements of truth from two X legal directors.

Account Suspensions Preceded Legal Action Amid Program Transition

X says it suspended the defendants’ accounts on August 18 for what it described as coordinated revenue-sharing fraud and platform manipulation, filing the court action one month later. The suspensions occurred while X was preparing to retire the monetization system at issue in the lawsuit. According to X’s official Creator Revenue Sharing guidance, new enrollments stopped August 7 and existing participants could continue earning only through September 7, with the final payout for earnings under the former program scheduled around September 11. As previously reported, the platform had been considering USDC and other stablecoins as possible creator-payment options while moving away from the old revenue-sharing model, though no stablecoin payment system had been confirmed at the time.

The older program rewarded eligible creators partly according to engagement generated by their posts. To qualify, users had to meet requirements including an X Premium subscription, more than five million organic impressions over the previous three months, more than 500 verified followers, and compliance with platform rules. X relied heavily on those rules in its pleading, stating that Creator Revenue Sharing terms permitted it to withhold or recover payments when creators artificially inflated views, used bots, or manipulated the platform. In related enforcement actions, X tightened monetization enforcement in March for creators posting undisclosed AI-generated war videos, imposing temporary suspensions from revenue sharing and permanent removal for repeat violations.

Why This Matters

This lawsuit illuminates the ongoing challenges platforms face in policing monetization programs vulnerable to coordinated inauthentic behavior. The alleged scheme—spanning nearly three years and involving multiple accounts, overlapping technical identifiers, and cross-border payment details—demonstrates how sophisticated actors can exploit engagement-based revenue models. X’s transition to the Original Content Rewards program, which bases payouts on qualified impressions from original material viewed by Premium subscribers in the Home Timeline and expressly excludes fraudulent or artificially generated impressions, reflects a broader industry shift toward more verifiable monetization metrics. The case also highlights the legal strategy platforms may pursue to recover funds and deter future abuse: combining civil claims for deceit, conspiracy, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment with platform-level enforcement actions such as account suspensions. For creators and advertisers, the outcome could signal how aggressively platforms will pursue clawbacks and legal remedies when program integrity is compromised.

Frequently Asked Questions

Who are the named defendants in X’s UK lawsuit?

Vivek Kumar Sen and Zamyang Sherpa are the two named defendants, along with unidentified operators referred to as “persons unknown” in the High Court filing.

How much money does X allege was fraudulently obtained?

X claims total Creator Revenue Sharing losses of no less than £207,384 across six primary accounts, plus an estimated £75,000 or more in investigation and remediation costs.

What program replaced Creator Revenue Sharing?

X launched the Original Content Rewards program on September 8, which bases payouts on qualified impressions from original content viewed by Premium subscribers and explicitly excludes fraudulent, paid, promoted, or artificially generated impressions.