X sues two users over alleged fake engagement tied to creator payouts

X sues two users over alleged payout manipulation

X filed a lawsuit on Sept. 17, 2026, accusing Vivek Kumar Sen, Zamyang Sherpa, and unidentified operators of running a coordinated account network that manipulated engagement to collect creator payments, according to CryptoSlate. X is seeking £207,384 back.

The case is about the platform's creator payout program, not about the price of Bitcoin. CryptoSlate reported the details on Sept. 26, 2026, in a piece noting that posting about Bitcoin can earn money even when Bitcoin's price falls.

Key details from the filing

• X alleges the accounts coordinated their posts and interactions to make activity look like independent engagement, then collected creator payouts.
• One example in the filing shows the same posts from @Vivek4real_ and @TrendingBitcoin appearing 11 seconds apart.
• X also alleges connections between payment records and devices used by the accounts.
• The case does not accuse the defendants of moving Bitcoin's price or of urging anyone to buy Bitcoin, per CryptoSlate's description of the filing.

What X's general counsel says

In an announcement of the lawsuit on X, general counsel James Burnham said the company will act against fraud to protect its platform and the earnings of legitimate creators, according to CryptoSlate.

CryptoSlate described deterrence as the main reason for the suit. Its stated logic: recovering one set of payments shows users that the consequences go beyond losing an account, and a ban alone may not be enough of a deterrent if money already collected makes the attempt worthwhile.

How the payouts worked

X pays eligible creators for attracting an audience, and views from paying subscribers contribute to earnings, CryptoSlate reported. In simple terms, the account earns based on attention, largely regardless of what the account or its audience says or does.

CryptoSlate noted that the incentives for someone posting about Bitcoin differ from those of someone buying Bitcoin. A buyer wants the price to rise, while a poster can draw attention at any time by publishing content designed to provoke or attract an audience. The outlet added that short attention spans push users toward clickbait-style headlines, and that republishing versions of the same headline across multiple accounts gives it a better chance of being seen.

CryptoSlate also pointed out that X's rules allow multiple accounts with different purposes, and that independent people can post at nearly the same moment. The alleged abuse, it said, is making coordinated activity look like independent engagement and getting paid for it.

X is switching to Original Content Rewards

CryptoSlate reported that X has started replacing the program involved in the lawsuit with Original Content Rewards. Existing revenue-sharing participants could earn through Sept. 7, and applications for the replacement began rolling out Sept. 8.

The change predates the lawsuit filing, so CryptoSlate said it cannot be presented as a consequence of the case. Under the new rules, copied material and lightly rewritten versions of someone else's work are excluded, while commentary that adds the author's own perspective is allowed. Artificially generated views do not qualify for payment.

What is confirmed

• X filed the lawsuit on Sept. 17, 2026, naming Vivek Kumar Sen and Zamyang Sherpa along with unidentified operators.
• X is seeking £207,384.
• The claims are allegations. CryptoSlate's report does not say a court has ruled on them.
• X is moving to a new rewards program called Original Content Rewards.

What is still unclear

The supplied report does not say whether the defendants have responded to the lawsuit, who the unidentified operators are, or when the case might be decided. It also does not say how the new rules will be applied in practice.

CryptoSlate described the £207,000 figure as very small for a company of X's size and framed deterrence and the principle behind the payment program as the reasons for the case. That framing is the outlet's assessment, not a statement of fact from X.

Why it matters for what you see in your feed

CryptoSlate argued that readers cannot see who receives an account's payments or which devices run it. They see different names, photos, and verified accounts that appear to agree with each other.

To illustrate the risk, CryptoSlate offered a hypothetical example: a company says it is considering buying Bitcoin, and shortly after, several verified accounts say the company bought Bitcoin, with engagement from other verified users backing that up. A casual reader could believe the purchase happened because it looks like several independent sources. The outlet said posts would not need to contain lies to mislead in that way.

CryptoSlate also said that paying for behavior that frustrates creators and readers could hurt the product X is trying to sell, and that creators who spend hours on original work need to believe the platform can tell their audience apart from manufactured activity.

Sources

• CryptoSlate