Eliza Labs and founder Shaw Walters filed a federal antitrust lawsuit against social media platform X on Aug. 27.

According to the lawsuit, the plaintiffs are alleging that the social media platform fraudulently extracted technical information about their AI agents before deplatforming them and launching competing products.

The complaint seeks damages exceeding $75,000 and immediate restoration of the account.

In an Aug. 28 statement, Walters described the lawsuit as a last resort after months of failed negotiations.

He said:

“X and xAI realize this on some level – they just filed a lawsuit alleging that Apple and OpenAI are doing the same anticompetitive conduct to them that X is doing to us.”

Walters added that X initially invited collaboration after seeing widespread adoption of Eliza’s open-source AI agent framework.

Following meetings at X headquarters in February, the platform demanded Eliza purchase a $600,000 annual enterprise license despite already paying over $20,000 annually in fees.

Antitrust claims

An antitrust lawsuit challenges practices that harm fair competition, such as monopolies and anticompetitive behavior, to protect consumers and ensure open markets.

Eliza’s complaint alleges X violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act by leveraging monopoly power in short-form social media to suppress AI competition.

The lawsuit details how X suspended Eliza’s accounts in June 2025, then demanded extensive technical documentation under the pretense of account reinstatement.

Walters claims that X used this information to develop nearly identical AI features, including 3D avatars, voice integration, and telephone capabilities, which were launched through xAI’s products.

He added that X requested detailed explanations of Eliza’s framework architecture, endpoint functionality, and implementation specifics while developing competing products.

Remedies include platform restoration

The lawsuit seeks multiple forms of relief, including a declaratory judgment that X lacks Section 230 immunity for anticompetitive deplatforming, injunctions preventing future exclusionary conduct, and account restoration with full platform access.

Monetary remedies include disgorgement of X’s unjust enrichment from copying Eliza’s technology, compensation for fraudulent misrepresentation, and unfair competition damages, as well as treble damages under the Sherman Act provisions.

The plaintiffs also request punitive damages and attorneys’ fees. The lawsuit comes days after Elon Musk’s xAI sued Apple and OpenAI on Aug. 25.

Musk’s lawsuit alleged that the companies conspired to suppress AI competition through Apple’s exclusive ChatGPT integration and App Store favoritism. The lawsuit claims Apple’s partnership with OpenAI makes it “impossible for any AI company besides OpenAI to reach #1 in the App Store.”

The parallel litigation highlights escalating legal battles over AI market control, with Musk pursuing antitrust claims while facing very similar allegations from Eliza Labs.

Mentioned in this article

Trusted Editorial content, reviewed by leading industry experts and seasoned editors. Ad Disclosure

In the latest development, an Illinois judge has granted a motion to pause proceedings in a lawsuit against US-based cryptocurrency exchange Coinbase. This decision would suspend further actions in the crypto company’s court case involving alleged violations of the state’s Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA).

How Another Case Could Decide The Outcome Of Coinbase Lawsuit

According to an August 21 filing in the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division, Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman approved a motion submitted by Coinbase to stay a lawsuit accusing the exchange of violating the state’s Biometric Information Privacy Act. The motion asked the court to wait for a ruling from the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on a similar case.

The Court of Appeals case involves Nuance Communications and Charles Schwab, with the intricacies around supplying voice identification technology forming the foundation of the legal battle. The decision from this particular lawsuit could set precedent for how BIPA affects financial service providers, including cryptocurrency exchanges.

The court document read:

[T]he Court finds that the stay would simplify the issues and streamline the trial […] reduce the burden of litigation on the Court and the parties […] [and] would not unduly prejudice or tactically disadvantage Plaintiffs.

The lawsuit, filed in May 2025 by a group of users, accused Coinbase of the “wholesale collection” of biometric data for its Know Your Customer (KYC) requirements without notifying the users, thereby violating the Illinois law. The plaintiffs also alleged that the crypto company inappropriately shared the faceprints with third-party verification providers. 

Under Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act, private firms or organizations can face damages of up to $5,000 for each instance of reckless or intentional violation of the law and $1,000 per negligent violation of the BIPA. The plaintiffs also sought relief to cover their legal costs.

Coinbase Under Pressure From Data Security Breach

Due to a separate incident, Coinbase has been under scrutiny over the security of customer data. The crypto company revealed in May that a group of customer support contractors in India accessed account data for users in exchange for bribes.

While the customer contractors were eventually dismissed, the individuals behind the data breach tried to extort $20 million in Bitcoin from Coinbase. Ultimately, this incident has put Coinbase under pressure and called into question its process of handling personal user data.

Featured image from iStock, chart from TradingView

Editorial Process for bitcoinist is centered on delivering thoroughly researched, accurate, and unbiased content. We uphold strict sourcing standards, and each page undergoes diligent review by our team of top technology experts and seasoned editors. This process ensures the integrity, relevance, and value of our content for our readers.

President Trump has filed a defamation lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal and its parent company News Corp, alleging they falsely claimed he sent a lewd birthday card to Jeffrey Epstein in 2003.

The lawsuit, filed in Florida federal court, centers on a July 17, 2025 WSJ article titled “Jeffrey Epstein’s Friends Sent Him Bawdy Letters for a 50th Birthday Album. One was from Donald Trump.” Trump seeks $10 billion in damages, claiming the story was fabricated to “malign President Trump’s character and integrity.”

According to the complaint, the WSJ article described a card allegedly containing “several lines of typewritten text framed by the outline of a naked woman” with Trump’s signature placed “below her waist, mimicking pubic hair.” The article claimed the card included a theatrical-style dialogue between Trump and Epstein, with lines like “We have certain things in common, Jeffrey” and ending with “A pal is a wonderful thing. Happy Birthday — and may every day be another wonderful secret.”

Trump’s lawyers say they warned the WSJ before publication that the story was false, writing in an email that “President Trump did not author the purported letter.” The complaint states the Journal “failed to attach the letter, failed to attach the alleged drawing, failed to show proof that President Trump authored or signed any such letter, and failed to explain how this purported letter was obtained.”

The lawsuit names WSJ parent company News Corp, its owner Rupert Murdoch, CEO Robert Thomson, and the article’s authors Khadeeja Safdar and Joseph Palazzolo as defendants. It claims the story has been viewed by “hundreds of millions of people” and caused “overwhelming financial and reputational damages to President Trump.”

“The reason for those failures is because no authentic letter or drawing exists,” the lawsuit states.

The WSJ has yet to respond to the lawsuit. My guess is they are well-prepared to deal with it.

A multi-billion-dollar bank is planning to shell out $510,000 to settle a class action lawsuit stemming from allegations that the financial institution hit customers with improper overdraft fees.

Customers accuse Park National Bank of assessing allegedly improper Authorized Positive Purportedly Settled Negative (APPSN) fees between November 1st, 2016 and February 20th, 2025.

An account that is initially authorized for a transaction but later has insufficient funds to process it and is overdrawn will receive APPSN fees, according to Law Insider.

The Ohio-based Park National Bank, which U.S. Federal Reserve statistics indicate has more than $9.8 billion in consolidated assets, denies any wrongdoing or liability but opted to settle the case to avoid dealing with the cost of litigation.

The bank agreed to create a settlement fund of $510,000, and it will also provide overdraft forgiveness as defined in the agreement.

Of that settlement fund, up to $170,000 could go toward attorneys’ fees. The court will determine the amount of the attorneys’ fees and costs based on numerous factors, including risk, time and the outcome of the case.

The court plans to hold a final approval hearing for the settlement on September 5th. If it is approved, payments should be made within two months of the effective date.

Follow us on X, Facebook and Telegram

Don’t Miss a Beat – Subscribe to get email alerts delivered directly to your inbox

Check Price Action

Surf The Daily Hodl Mix

&nbsp

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed at The Daily Hodl are not investment advice. Investors should do their due diligence before making any high-risk investments in Bitcoin, cryptocurrency or digital assets. Please be advised that your transfers and trades are at your own risk, and any losses you may incur are your responsibility. The Daily Hodl does not recommend the buying or selling of any cryptocurrencies or digital assets, nor is The Daily Hodl an investment advisor. Please note that The Daily Hodl participates in affiliate marketing.

Generated Image: Midjourney