X Takes Legal Action Over Bitcoin Revenue Scheme

X has launched a legal case in England against two individuals and several unidentified account operators, alleging that a group of Bitcoin-focused accounts worked together to manipulate engagement and receive more than £207,000 through the platform’s former Creator Revenue Sharing program.

The lawsuit was filed in the High Court on September 17 by X Internet Unlimited Company and X Corp. The named defendants are Vivek Kumar Sen and Zamyang Sherpa, along with other individuals whose identities have not yet been established.

The allegations have not been proven in court. As of September 21, no publicly available defense or judgment concerning the claims had been identified.

X Claims Several Accounts Worked Together

According to the company’s filing, six accounts were at the center of the alleged network. They include @Vivek4real_, @Bitcoin_Teddy, @saylordocs, @TrendingBitcoin, @Kalshibacktest and @PolyBackTest.

X says the accounts were not operating independently but instead interacted with one another in a coordinated manner. The company alleges that similar posts were published within very short periods and that the accounts repeatedly liked, reposted and responded to each other’s content.

Similar Posts Raised Questions About Engagement

X cited several examples in its court filing. In one case, three of the accounts reportedly responded to the same post within less than a minute. In other examples, accounts allegedly published highly similar material only seconds or minutes apart.

The filing also mentions @BTC_Vibes, @MrSuperBitcoin and @Laserlump. X claims these accounts repeatedly interacted with content from the main group and may have formed part of the wider network.

However, the company also stated that additional investigation could reveal more accounts or activity connected to the case.

Company Says Revenue Was Linked to Artificial Engagement

At the center of X’s complaint is the claim that the accounts generated engagement that qualified for payments under the old creator-revenue system.

X says the accounts collectively received at least £207,384. The company has also estimated that it could face at least another £75,000 in expenses related to investigating the activity, analyzing the accounts, addressing the issue and preventing similar incidents.

The alleged payments included more than £74,000 associated with @Vivek4real_, around £50,000 linked to @Bitcoin_Teddy, and nearly £49,500 connected to @saylordocs. Smaller amounts were attributed to the other accounts.

X Seeks Repayment and Additional Damages

The company is asking the court to order the return of the money it says was improperly obtained. It is also seeking damages or other forms of compensation, interest and legal costs.

X alleges that information connected to payment accounts was misleading and that technical indicators such as devices, software, cookies and other identifiers showed connections between accounts.

These claims are part of X’s allegations involving deceit, breach of contract, conspiracy and unjust enrichment. They remain allegations and have not been established by a court.

The Accounts Were Suspended Before the Case Was Filed

X says it suspended the accounts on August 18 after detecting what it described as coordinated manipulation of its revenue-sharing system.

The suspension happened shortly before the company ended the Creator Revenue Sharing program. New registrations had already been closed on August 7, while existing participants could continue receiving revenue under the old system until September 7.

X then began moving creators toward a replacement program known as Original Content Rewards.

X Changes the Way Creators Are Paid

The new Original Content Rewards system started rolling out on September 8. Under the updated model, creators can earn based on qualifying impressions generated by original posts viewed by Premium subscribers in the Home Timeline.

The rules specifically exclude fraudulent, paid, promoted or artificially generated impressions.

Content that is copied, simply reuploaded, minimally changed or aggregated without meaningful original input may also be excluded from rewards.

X says creators must avoid bots, automation and other methods designed to artificially increase likes, views, followers, comments or reposts.

What Happens Next in the UK Case?

For the UK lawsuit, X alleges that Sen, Sherpa and the unidentified defendants were involved in several forms of misconduct related to the former monetization program.

The company is seeking financial recovery and other remedies through the court.

At this stage, however, the case consists of allegations made by X. The publicly available filing does not establish that the defendants committed the alleged actions, and no publicly available judgment had determined the matter by September 21, 2026.