X Internet Unlimited Company and X Corp. have filed a lawsuit in the United Kingdom against two named defendants and a group of unidentified account operators, alleging that a coordinated network of Bitcoin-focused accounts fraudulently obtained at least £207,384 in creator payouts through the platform's revenue-sharing program. The company says the accounts copied posts and boosted each other's engagement to increase payments. The filing underscores the enforcement challenges platforms face when creator payouts are tied directly to engagement metrics.

The claim was lodged in the Business and Property Courts of England and Wales on September 17. Defendants named in the filing are Vivek Kumar Sen and Zamyang Sherpa, along with unidentified individuals alleged to have operated related accounts. The claims have not been proven in court, and no public defense filing or judgment had been located as of September 21.

News of the filing was circulated by Wu Blockchain on X:

X Sues Bitcoin Influencers, Alleging Engagement Manipulation to Fraudulently Obtain at Least £207,384 in Creator Revenue

X Internet Unlimited Company and X Corp. filed a lawsuit in the UK High Court on September 17 against Vivek Kumar Sen, Zamyang Sherpa, and operators of… pic.twitter.com/5art1MrCmq

— Wu Blockchain (@WuBlockchain) September 21, 2026

X Alleges Coordinated Bitcoin Account Network

According to the filing, six main accounts were operated as a coordinated network designed to increase monetizable engagement: @Vivek4real_, @Bitcoin_Teddy, @saylordocs, @TrendingBitcoin, @Kalshibacktest and @PolyBackTest.

X alleges that some of the accounts published substantially similar posts within seconds or minutes of one another, and that the accounts repeatedly liked, reposted and replied to each other's content. The company says this activity was used to inflate impressions and creator payments under its Creator Revenue Sharing Program.

Three additional accounts were also named in an annex as allegedly taking part in related engagement activity. X said further investigation could identify more accounts or operators.

X Seeks More Than £207,000 in Payments

X claims it paid at least £207,384 through the disputed accounts. The largest listed payment was £74,332.44 for @Vivek4real_, while @saylordocs received £49,441.91, according to the filing. Payments linked to @Bitcoin_Teddy were listed at roughly £50,000, while other accounts received smaller amounts.

The company is also seeking at least £75,000 for investigation, analysis, remediation and prevention costs. It alleges that some associated payment accounts contained misleading information and that overlapping devices, cookies, software clients and other identifiers connected parts of the network.

X's legal claims include deceit, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, knowing receipt and unlawful-means conspiracy. The company is seeking repayment or delivery of the disputed funds, damages, interest and legal costs.

X Replaces Creator Revenue Sharing Program

X suspended the disputed accounts on August 18 after identifying what it described as coordinated revenue-sharing fraud. The platform stopped accepting new participants into Creator Revenue Sharing on August 7 and ended earnings under the program on September 7.

X began rolling out its replacement, the Original Content Rewards Program, on September 8. The new system bases payments on qualified impressions generated by original content viewed by Premium subscribers. By tying payouts to originality and excluding manufactured impressions, the redesigned program places the kind of activity alleged in the lawsuit outside the scope of future earnings.

Its rules exclude fraudulent, paid, promoted or artificially generated impressions. Copied content, reuploaded media and material with limited original contribution are also excluded from payouts, and X says creators cannot use bots, automation or other methods to manufacture engagement.

The lawsuit remains pending, no court ruling has yet determined whether X's allegations against Sen, Sherpa or the unidentified defendants are proven. As the case proceeds, any defense filings and X's stated possibility of identifying additional accounts are the developments most likely to clarify the scale of the alleged scheme.