The claim, filed on September 17 in the Business and Property Courts of England and Wales, names Vivek Kumar Sen and Zamyang Sherpa, both described in court papers as residents of Preston, Lancashire, alongside “persons unknown” alleged to have operated, used or controlled associated accounts. The allegations have not been tested in court, and no finding of wrongdoing has been made.
X alleges that the defendants coordinated a network of accounts that appeared to operate independently but systematically amplified one another’s posts through likes, reposts and replies. The company says the activity created a false impression of genuine user engagement, increasing payments generated under its creator monetisation system.
Six principal accounts are identified in the particulars of claim: @Vivek4real, @BitcoinTeddy, @saylordocs, @TrendingBitcoin, @Kalshibacktest and @PolyBackTest. X says they participated in Creator Revenue Sharing at various times between August 2023 and February 2026.
According to the filing, payment accounts linked with the first three profiles were associated with Sen, while accounts connected with the other three were associated with Sherpa. X also alleges that additional profiles helped boost the network’s engagement, and has included unidentified operators as defendants while seeking to establish who controlled them.
The company says its investigation found repeated instances in which accounts published identical or near-identical Bitcoin-related material within short intervals and interacted with the same posts in rapid succession. One example cited in the claim alleges that three accounts replied to a third-party post within 31 seconds. Another alleges that two profiles published near-identical material 11 seconds apart.
X further claims that technical and financial indicators connected accounts across the alleged network. The particulars refer to devices, software clients, cookies, payment information and other identifiers that the company says supported its conclusion that apparently separate profiles were being operated in coordination.
The platform suspended the six main accounts on August 18, according to the court papers. X is seeking repayment of sums it says were improperly received, as well as damages, interest and legal costs. It estimates that investigation, analysis, remediation and measures intended to prevent similar conduct will cost at least £75,000.
Its causes of action include deceit, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, knowing receipt and conspiracy by unlawful means. Those claims remain allegations unless established through the proceedings or admitted by the defendants.
The case centres on a creator payment system that X has since retired. The company stopped accepting new enrolments into Creator Revenue Sharing on August 7 and allowed existing participants to continue earning until September 7, before shifting creators towards its Original Content Rewards programme.
The programme linked creator payouts to engagement from eligible users, making interaction metrics financially significant.
Under the replacement scheme, qualifying creators are paid for eligible impressions generated by original material. X’s published rules exclude fraudulent, paid, promoted or artificially generated impressions and bar participants from using automated tools or other methods to manufacture likes, follows, views, comments or shares.
The new programme also places greater emphasis on material created by the account holder, including original writing, reporting, analysis, photographs, video, graphics and commentary. Copied, minimally modified and automatically posted material is excluded from qualifying content under the published guidelines.
X general counsel James Burnham publicly highlighted the legal action after the claim was filed, saying the company would act against fraudulent conduct affecting its platform and legitimate creator earnings. The court documents set out X’s account of the alleged operation but do not establish the defendants’ liability.
The proceedings are listed under claim number BL-2026-001161. X Internet Unlimited Company, the entity involved in operating X’s services outside the United States, and X Corp are represented in the action by Lewis Silkin LLP.
Follow Arabian Post
Select Arabian Post as your preferred source on Google and MSN News for trusted business news and Arab politics and updates.
