X sues Bitcoin influencers in London court, alleging a coordinated network farmed £207,000 in creator payouts

X has sued a group of Bitcoin influencers in England’s High Court, alleging that six accounts operated as a single coordinated network to inflate engagement and collect at least £207,384 from its former Creator Revenue Sharing Program.

The suit, filed Sept. 17, names Vivek Kumar Sen, Zamyang Sherpa and unidentified individuals. None of the claims has been tested in court.

X sues Bitcoin influencers over alleged coordinated engagement

At the center of the case is X’s claim that multiple accounts were not operating independently but were instead being used as parts of one coordinated network.

According to the court filing, six principal accounts were enrolled in the former Creator Revenue Sharing Program between August 2023 and February 2026. They include @Vivek4real_, @Bitcoin_Teddy, @saylordocs, @TrendingBitcoin, @Kalshibacktest and @PolyBackTest.

X alleges that the accounts repeatedly interacted with one another by liking, reposting and replying to content, while also publishing substantially similar material within short periods.

The company argues that this activity created the appearance of legitimate user engagement and increased the amount of monetizable activity attributed to the accounts.

The filing gives several examples. On August 13, X says three of the accounts responded to the same third-party post within 31 seconds. The company also alleges that substantially similar posts appeared across multiple accounts within minutes on several dates in July and August.

Three additional handles — @BTC_Vibes, @MrSuperBitcoin and @Laserlump — are identified in an annex to the complaint. X alleges that those accounts repeatedly interacted with the primary accounts and may have formed part of the wider activity under investigation.

X sues Bitcoin influencers as payout dispute tops £207,000

The financial component of the lawsuit is based on payments X says were distributed to the disputed accounts through Creator Revenue Sharing.

The company’s schedule identifies approximately £74,332 paid to @Vivek4real_. X lists about £50,065 for @Bitcoin_Teddy, together with a smaller payment converted from Paraguayan guaraní. Another £49,441.91 is attributed to @saylordocs, while @TrendingBitcoin allegedly received £22,938.35.

The remaining listed payments are £3,490.71 for @Kalshibacktest and £6,705.25 for @PolyBackTest. Together, X places the alleged Creator Revenue Sharing loss at no less than £207,384.

X also estimates that it could incur at least another £75,000 in investigation, analysis, remediation and prevention expenses. The company says the final figure for those costs was not yet known when the claim was filed.

The lawsuit alleges that payment information, devices, software clients, cookies and other identifiers linked several of the accounts. X further claims that some financial information did not correspond with the apparent operators of the accounts.

Those assertions form part of X’s legal claims, which include deceit, unlawful-means conspiracy, breach of contract, unjust enrichment and knowing receipt.

Importantly for investors and crypto industry observers, these remain allegations contained in the company’s pleading rather than established findings of fact.

The filing states that the defendants allegedly “operated multiple accounts on the X platform as a single coordinated network” for the purpose of manipulating engagement metrics.

X sues Bitcoin influencers as its monetization system changes

The legal action arrives during a broader transition in X’s creator monetization strategy.  X suspended the accounts identified in the lawsuit on August 18, according to the company’s court filing. The suspension came shortly before Creator Revenue Sharing was discontinued.

X’s previous program stopped accepting new participants on August 7, while existing participants were allowed to continue earning through September 7. The platform scheduled its final payments under the old system for around September 11.

The former system rewarded eligible creators partly according to engagement generated by their posts. Among the requirements were an X Premium subscription, more than five million organic impressions during the previous three months and more than 500 verified followers, alongside compliance with X’s rules.

The platform’s terms also gave X the ability to withhold or recover payments where it determined that views, engagement or other metrics had been artificially manipulated.

For crypto investors and creators who rely on social media for audience development, the case illustrates the financial importance of platform-level engagement rules.

Activity that appears valuable through conventional social metrics can become a liability if a platform determines that the underlying interactions were artificially generated.

X sues Bitcoin influencers under new content-reward rules

The dispute also comes as X replaces Creator Revenue Sharing with its Original Content Rewards Program.

The newer system began rolling out on September 8. Under the revised structure, payouts are tied to qualified impressions generated by original content viewed by Premium subscribers in the Home Timeline. X’s rules specifically exclude fraudulent, paid, promoted or artificially generated impressions.

The new terms also restrict creators from using bots, automation or other mechanisms to manufacture likes, views, follows, comments or reposts.

Copied posts, minimally altered material and aggregated content without a meaningful original contribution are similarly excluded from eligibility.

For the defendants in the current case, however, the legal dispute concerns activity connected to the previous Creator Revenue Sharing system rather than establishing liability under the newer rewards model.

The High Court filing seeks repayment or delivery of the disputed funds, damages, restitutionary compensation, interest, legal costs and any other relief the court considers appropriate.

As of September 21, no publicly accessible defense filing or judgment responding to X’s allegations had been identified in the material reviewed.

X sues Bitcoin influencers at a time when crypto-related creators remain an important source of market commentary, education and audience engagement. The outcome could therefore provide additional clarity around how platforms treat coordinated activity, monetized engagement and creator accountability.

Until the court considers the evidence, however, the allegations against Sen, Sherpa and the unidentified account operators should not be treated as proven misconduct.