Jeremy Ryan’s NFT Lawsuit Against X Corp.

Facts in the Backdrop of the Incident

Jeremy Ryan, a California resident, survived brain cancer and turned to art during recovery. He created NFTs and quickly became a leading NFT artist on the Binance Smart Chain. He launched six major collections and built a large online following. To grow his work, he opened multiple accounts on X, formerly Twitter. He paid for premium subscriptions and used the platform to promote his NFT projects. His accounts drew celebrity attention, including John Cena and Snoop Dogg. Ryan’s projects gained thousands of followers, and he organized waitlists for upcoming launches.

Events Leading to the Legal Dispute

X promoted itself as a platform supporting free speech and promised users the right to appeal suspensions. Ryan relied on these assurances and built his NFT business on the platform. Despite this, X suspended multiple accounts, including @nftdemon_420, @gremlin_society, and others, without explanation. Each time Ryan tried to appeal, the form redirected without processing his request. He attempted thirteen appeals, but none succeeded. One account was briefly reinstated after X admitted its AI system wrongly flagged him as spam. However, X suspended his accounts again in April 2024 without any opportunity for appeal. X continued displaying Ryan’s content alongside ads, deriving revenue while restricting his access. Ryan alleged X never intended to honor its appeal process, misled users, and profited from creators’ intellectual property even after suspensions.

Plaintiff’s Injuries and Their Impact

Ryan lost his primary source of income. His ability to promote upcoming NFT projects collapsed. The suspension cut off access to thousands of potential buyers and destroyed momentum he built for his collections. He lost goodwill, reputation, and brand visibility in the NFT community. His professional growth and livelihood were stunted.

Claimed Damages

Ryan claimed severe financial losses from halted NFT sales and lost business opportunities. He also alleged emotional and reputational harm from being wrongfully suspended without recourse. He argued X unfairly retained benefits from his work, including advertising revenue tied to his posts, while stripping him of account access. He sought compensatory, punitive, and statutory damages, injunctive relief to restore accounts, and attorneys’ fees.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

Legal Representation

• Plaintiff(s): Jeremy Ryan

• Counsel for Plaintiff: Jeremy Ryan | Donna Etemadi

• Defendant(s): X Corp.

• Counsel for Defendants: Kenneth Michael Trujillo-Jamison | Eileen M. Ahern | Donna Etemadi

Claims Against the Defendants

Ryan brought four causes of action against X Corp.:

1. Promissory Estoppel – X made clear promises of an appeal policy but failed to honor them.

2. Unjust Enrichment – X profited from his subscriptions and content without upholding its obligations.

3. Promissory Fraud – X falsely promised appeal rights, knowing it would not provide them.

4. False Advertising and Unfair Business Practices – X misled users about appeal rights, retained licenses to user content, and continued to profit from Ryan’s intellectual property.

Defense

X Corp. filed a reply supporting its motion to dismiss Jeremy Ryan’s Second Amended Complaint (SAC). The company argued that Ryan’s claims remain legally barred by the platform’s Terms of Service, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, and the First Amendment. X Corp. emphasized that Ryan’s opposition brief merely repeated arguments already rejected when the court dismissed his earlier complaints. The company contended that the Terms granted it discretion to suspend accounts without liability, that Section 230 immunized it from liability for content moderation decisions, and that the First Amendment protected its editorial choices.

X Corp. further maintained that Ryan failed to plausibly state claims for promissory estoppel, unjust enrichment, promissory fraud, or unfair business practices. It said Ryan’s allegations were speculative, lacked particularity, and contradicted the Terms he accepted. Citing the court’s warning that the SAC was his “last” chance to amend, X Corp. urged dismissal with prejudice, arguing further amendment would be futile.

Proceedings

On July 16, 2025, Judge William H. Orrick granted Jeremy Ryan’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal in his case against X Corp. The court had dismissed Ryan’s claims on June 6, 2025, holding that X’s Terms of Service and Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act shielded it from liability. After filing a notice of appeal, Ryan submitted an amended IFP application that included required statements of entitlement to redress and the issues he planned to raise—challenging the court’s application of Section 230, interpretation of X’s Terms, and dismissal of his promissory fraud claims. The order directed the Clerk to notify both Ryan and the Ninth Circuit.

Court Documents

Court documents are available for purchase upon request at Jurimatic@exlitem.com