jili tutorial

X Accuses Duel.com Founder of Bribery, Account Manipulation, and Harassment Campaign

By jili tutorial · October 1, 2026

X Accuses Duel.com Founder of Bribery, Account Manipulation, and Harassment Campaign

In late September 2025, X Corp. (the company formerly known as Twitter) filed a lawsuit in a Texas federal court against Immortal Snail LLC, the entity that owns the gambling platform Duel.com, along with its founder Ossi Ketola. The complaint, submitted on September 28, paints a detailed picture of an alleged multi-year campaign to bribe employees, steal valuable usernames, reinstate suspended accounts, and target individuals critical of Ketola and his businesses.

This case touches on broader issues of platform security, arbitration agreements, and the lengths to which some users may go to manipulate social media systems. Below, we break down the key allegations, the background of the dispute, and what this means for the involved parties.

Background: How the Conflict Began

The Initial Account Hacks (2024)

According to the lawsuit, the trouble dates back to 2024, when accounts associated with the usernames @duel and @monarch were allegedly hacked. These are highly desirable, one-word usernames that carry significant value on X—both for branding and for potential resale.

X claims that Ketola and his associates then reached out to insiders at the company to help regain control of the hacked accounts. This marks the beginning of a pattern where external actors allegedly sought to bypass standard platform procedures by cultivating contacts within X’s workforce.

The Role of Bridgewater Associates

Notably, the lawsuit does not directly involve the investment firm Bridgewater Associates, despite its earlier reported interest in Duel.com. However, the connection highlights how high-stakes username disputes can draw in major financial players.

Detailed Allegations: Bribery, Threats, and Unauthorized Access

Bribery of Employees and Contractors

X’s complaint alleges a systematic effort to corrupt its staff:

X states that it fired all involved personnel and re-suspended the compromised accounts once the breaches were discovered.

Attempts to Manipulate Account Suspensions

Beyond bribery, the lawsuit describes coordinated efforts to weaponize X’s enforcement system:

Harassment and Doxxing Campaigns

The complaint also ties Ketola and Immortal Snail to aggressive online behavior against individuals:

Username Ownership and Purchases

A separate thread in the complaint deals with the valuable usernames themselves:

Ketola’s Counter-Narrative vs. X’s Evidence

Ketola’s Public Claims (October 2025)

In a striking turnaround, Ketola had previously gone public with a different story. In October 2025, he claimed that someone had paid to have his personal and business accounts removed from X. He characterized the suspensions as part of a coordinated campaign against him, and stated he was actively trying to restore access.

X’s Rebuttal

X now denies this version of events. The company asserts that:

This contradiction lies at the heart of the legal battle: who was the victim, and who was the aggressor?

Procedural Roadblock: The Arbitration Fight

Immortal Snail’s Arbitration Claim

In April 2025, Immortal Snail filed an arbitration claim seeking to restore the suspended accounts. Arbitration is a private dispute resolution process that many tech companies include in their terms of service.

X’s Federal Court Challenge

X has asked the Texas federal court to halt the arbitration proceedings. The company argues that it never agreed to arbitrate this dispute—a crucial point, because if the court agrees, the entire matter will be litigated in public court rather than private arbitration.

What’s at Stake?

The federal judge must now decide two things:

  1. Whether the arbitration can move forward while X’s broader lawsuit is pending.
  2. Whether the allegations of bribery and hacking fall outside the scope of standard user agreements, making arbitration inappropriate.

Broader Implications for Platform Security

Insider Threats Remain a Persistent Challenge

This case highlights how valuable accounts and usernames can motivate outsiders to target a platform’s employees. X’s response—firing staff and re-suspending accounts—shows that even vigorous internal enforcement can be circumvented, at least temporarily.

The Market for Rare Usernames

One-word usernames like @duel, @monarch, and @castle can sell for tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars on the secondary market. This creates a powerful incentive for hacking, bribery, and predatory behavior—something platforms are still struggling to address.

Arbitration vs. Litigation

The dispute over arbitration is not just procedural. If X succeeds in halting arbitration, it could set a precedent allowing platforms to bypass private dispute resolution when they believe fraud or criminal behavior is involved.

Conclusion: A Complex Web of Allegations

The X vs. Immortal Snail lawsuit weaves together three distinct but overlapping threads: username theft, employee corruption, and online harassment. While Ketola has publicly portrayed himself as a victim of a coordinated takedown, X’s evidence suggests he and his company were the ones orchestrating the manipulation.

The next step is the federal court’s decision on arbitration. If X prevails there, the full scope of the allegations—including the $300,000 bribe offer and the @JNSAST harassment campaign—will be heard in open court.