X has taken legal action in the United Kingdom against several operators of Bitcoin-focused accounts, accusing them of running a coordinated network that artificially boosted engagement metrics to extract funds from the platform’s now-discontinued Creator Revenue Sharing program.

The lawsuit, filed on September 17, 2026, in the Business and Property Courts of England and Wales under claim number BL-2026-001161, names Vivek Kumar Sen, Zamyang Sherpa and “persons unknown” believed to have controlled linked accounts. X Internet Unlimited Company and X Corp are the claimants. The allegations have not been tested in court, and no defense filings or judgments were publicly available as of September 21.

Alleged Network of Accounts and Engagement Tactics

According to the particulars of claim, six primary accounts enrolled in Creator Revenue Sharing between August 2023 and February 2026 formed the core of the network: @Vivek4real_, @Bitcoin_Teddy, @saylordocs, @TrendingBitcoin, @Kalshibacktest and @PolyBackTest. Payment details associated with the first three accounts are linked to Sen, while those for the remaining three are linked to Sherpa. Three additional handles—@BTC_Vibes, @MrSuperBitcoin and @Laserlump—are identified in an annex as having repeatedly liked, replied to and reposted material from the primary accounts.

X alleges the accounts operated as a single coordinated unit. Substantially similar or identical posts appeared across the accounts within short intervals, while the accounts liked, reposted and replied to one another’s content. Specific examples cited include three accounts replying to the same third-party post within 31 seconds on August 13, matching content published minutes apart on several dates in July and early August, and two accounts posting nearly identical material just 11 seconds apart on August 5.

The company further claims the defendants supplied misleading information through associated payment accounts and used overlapping devices, software clients, cookies and other identifiers. Multiple bank accounts were allegedly employed to obscure the scheme.

In a public statement, Burnham said X had sued several people who abused Creator Revenue Sharing by operating a coordinated network of accounts, posting inauthentic content to manipulate engagement, and using multiple bank accounts to hide their scheme.

Financial Claims and Account Suspensions

X states that the disputed accounts received at least £207,384—equivalent to approximately $277,000 at recent exchange rates—through the Creator Revenue Sharing program. The company breaks down the payments as follows: roughly $99,600 for @Vivek4real_, about $67,000 for @Bitcoin_Teddy (including a smaller sum originally paid in Paraguayan guaraní),approximately $66,250 for @saylordocs, $30,700 for @TrendingBitcoin, $4,680 for @Kalshibacktest and $8,980 for @PolyBackTest.

In addition, X estimates investigation, analysis, remediation and prevention costs will total at least £75,000, or about $100,500, though the exact figure had not been fully quantified at the time of filing.

The platform suspended the accounts on August 18 for what it described as coordinated revenue-sharing fraud and platform manipulation. The court action followed one month later. X is seeking repayment or delivery 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 causes of action include deceit, unlawful-means conspiracy, breach of contract, unjust enrichment and knowing receipt.

End of Creator Revenue Sharing and New Rewards System

The lawsuit coincides with the retirement of the monetization program at the center of the dispute. New enrollments in Creator Revenue Sharing stopped on August 7. Existing participants could continue earning only through September 7, with a final payout scheduled around September 11. From September 8, X began rolling out the Original Content Rewards program.

Under the new system, payouts are based on qualified impressions generated by original material viewed by Premium subscribers in the Home Timeline. Rules explicitly exclude fraudulent, paid, promoted or artificially generated impressions. Copied posts, reuploaded media, minimally modified content and aggregated material without meaningful original contribution do not qualify. Participants are prohibited from using bots or automation to manufacture likes, views, follows, comments or shares, and X retains the ability to remove creators found engaging in malicious or fraudulent activity.

Previously, eligibility for Creator Revenue Sharing required an X Premium subscription, more than five million organic impressions over the preceding three months, more than 500 verified followers and compliance with platform rules. The terms allowed X to withhold or recover payments in cases of artificial inflation of views, use of bots or other manipulation.

Earlier this year, former product lead Nikita Bier publicly stated that one individual had operated more than 10 profiles and extracted over $250,000 from revenue sharing over two years, with the matter referred to law enforcement. The current case forms part of X’s broader efforts to address engagement farming, content recycling and inauthentic networks.

As of the latest available information, the claims remain allegations only. No court has yet determined whether the conduct described occurred or whether the funds must be repaid.