sued

In brief

Ex Populus, creator of the Xai gaming blockchain, is suing Elon Musk’s xAI for trademark infringement, and asking a court to block its use of the “xAI” name in gaming and blockchain.
The company says Musk’s expansion of xAI into gaming caused confusion with media, users, and even X’s own AI chatbot Grok, which mistakenly linked the two ventures.
Ex Populus argues Musk’s controversies, including Grok’s past offensive remarks, have severely damaged its brand.

The creators of Xai, a layer-3 gaming blockchain built on Ethereum, have sued Elon Musk’s xAI for trademark infringement—and are asking a federal court to force the billionaire’s artificial intelligence company to change its name and branding in contexts related to video games and blockchain.

In November, Musk announced plans to start an AI video game studio within xAI, to “make games great again.” Ex Populus, the company behind gaming blockchain Xai, now claims that Musk’s announcement immediately created “substantial actual confusion” online between their established video game brand, Xai, and Musk’s xAI gaming venture.

Numerous news aggregators and commentators used the blockchain’s logo in announcements about Musk’s venture, the company’s attorneys claim, and many more internet users mistook the separate ventures to be related. What’s more, Grok—Musk’s AI chatbot—also confused the two separate entities, and told X users they were both controlled by Musk’s companies, the attorneys said.

In a complaint filed Thursday, Ex Populus asked a federal court in northern California to order Musk’s AI company to cease using any words or symbols likely to cause confusion with Xai’s registered trademark, in the contexts of video gaming and blockchain.

It also requested punitive damages and all profits reaped by Musk’s companies for the alleged infringement.

Ex Populus’ attorneys repeatedly argued in their complaint that Musk’s company has not only consistently infringed on their copyright since last year—but, further, that the particular notoriety and controversy associated with the world’s richest man have made the alleged infringement particularly damaging to their brand.

Ex Populus took legal action today to protect the Xai brand. With increased confusion around Elon Musk’s AI company (@xai), it’s a big responsibility to safeguard the brand that the community trusts. You can read more details at https://t.co/ce8Aw9hNCZ

— XAI 🎮⛓️ (@XAI_GAMES) August 22, 2025

“Musk and defendants’ xAI company routinely receive substantive negative media attention that is now being attributed to plaintiff’s XAI trademark,” the attorneys wrote.

The lawyers made particular note of a controversy that erupted last month when Musk’s AI bot, Grok, referred to itself as “MechaHitler” for a brief period and made antisemitic, racist, and sexually violent comments across the X platform.

“Plaintiff losing control over its goodwill is irreparable harm sufficient to support an injunction to cease defendants’ use of the infringing xAI marks,” Ex Populus’ attorneys said, “but to be associated with Nazism, hate speech, and violence exacerbates the harm exponentially.”

Ex Populus said in a statement that Musk’s attorneys reached out to them recently about trademark issues, and that, now, the company feels it has no option but to fight back “or risk losing [the trademark] altogether.”

“This case isn’t just about Ex Populus or Xai,” the company said. “It speaks to something bigger: the right of smaller innovators to build without having their identity swallowed by tech giants.”

Musk’s xAI did not immediately respond to Decrypt’s request for comment on this story.

GG Newsletter

Get the latest web3 gaming news, hear directly from gaming studios and influencers covering the space, and receive power-ups from our partners.

Source link

Have you ever paid for a window seat on an airplane that didn’t actually have a window? You could be part of a class action lawsuit in the near future.

Delta and United Airlines have been sued this week in federal court for misrepresenting their seat offerings online. The plaintiffs note that when people buy tickets through competitors like Alaska Airlines and American Airlines, the website will flag when a window seat doesn’t actually have a window. Delta and United don’t tell consumers when that’s the case, according to the new lawsuits.

The filing against Delta, which is available online from Courthouse News, claims that the number of people affected could be over a million:

For many years, Delta has knowingly and routinely sold windowless “window” seats to travelers. For instance, various models of Delta’s Boeing 737, Boeing 757, and Airbus A321 aircraft are built with one or more seats that would traditionally have a window, but do not include one due to the placement of air conditioning ducts, electrical conduits, or other interior components. Delta operates hundreds of these planes, which each make multiple flights every day. As a result, Delta has likely sold over a million windowless “window” seats throughout the class period.

The lawsuit notes that people have many different reasons for trying to get a window seat, including a fear of flying or being claustrophobic. And if someone pays extra to get a window seat but doesn’t enjoy that benefit, they’re not getting what they paid for.

The court filings also include photos and social media posts from places like r/Delta where people have complained about paying extra and not getting a window.

Image: Courthouse News

Reuters points out that there are third-party websites like SeatGuru that allow consumers to look up a given plane to determine if a seat has a real window view. But Carter Greenbaum, a lawyer for the firm that filed the lawsuits, told the news outlet that, “A company can’t misrepresent the nature of the products it sells and then rely on third-party reviews to say a customer should have known that it was lying.”

The lawsuit notes that fees can add up quickly for people who are trying to get a window seat:

The added consideration required to select a window seat is significant. A typical basic economy traveler, for example, might need to spend upwards of $40 to advance to a higher ticket tier, and then must spend over $30 to select a particular window seat. For passengers who do not pay for these upgrades in cash, they pay for their seat selection with other valuable consideration, such as credits earned from Delta, membership fees for rewards programs, and/or in the opportunity cost of benefits they would have obtained from selecting a different credit card reward program. These additional fees to select particular seats are charged in addition to the base fare, taxes, and other fees.

The lawsuit against Delta has been filed in New York, while the suit against United was filed in California and they are listed as:

Meyer v Delta Air Lines Inc, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York, No. 25-04608
Brenman et al v United Airlines Inc, U.S. District Court, Northern District of San Francisco, No. 25-06995

United declined to comment on the case because it’s an “ongoing legal matter.” Delta didn’t immediately respond to questions sent on Thursday. Gizmodo will update this article when we hear back.

Source link

The Creators of an Ethereum Gaming Network Just Sued Elon Musk’s xAI

In brief

GG Newsletter

Airlines Sued for Selling ‘Window’ Seats Without a Window View