STREAMARCHIVERU
ClosedОбновлено August 26, 2026 at 11:41 AM

Coffeezilla vs Logan Paul: CryptoZoo investigation and response

Logan Paul publicly promoted CryptoZoo beginning in 2021 as a blockchain-based game involving NFT animals and ZOO tokens. By late 2022, the promised game had not been delivered in the form buyers expected. Coffeezilla published a three-part investigation on December 16, 20, and 23, 2022 examining the project's development failures, people involved in the project, token trading, unpaid-development allegations, and losses reported by purchasers. Coffeezilla argued that Paul still bore responsibility for promoting and failing to deliver CryptoZoo while also noting evidence that Paul did not personally sell Zoo Tokens and had taken some corrective action against suspicious wallets. Paul initially disputed the investigation, publicly promised to expose what he described as bad actors, invited Coffeezilla onto Impaulsive, and on January 3, 2023 released a response accusing Coffeezilla of misleading reporting and threatening a defamation lawsuit. Coffeezilla defended his reporting and responded publicly to the legal threat. On January 7, Paul reversed course, apologized to Coffeezilla, withdrew the lawsuit threat, and said his focus should be making CryptoZoo purchasers whole. On January 13, Paul announced a three-step recovery plan including an NFT buyback and a promise to finish the game. Coffeezilla continued monitoring the promised recovery and in June 2023 said purchasers still had not received the promised refund. In January 2024, Paul announced a new buyback funded with more than $2.3 million of his own money for certain eligible Base Egg and Base Animal NFTs, while excluding ZOO-token losses and requiring participants to release legal claims against him. He also announced that the CryptoZoo game would not be released and filed crossclaims against Eduardo Ibanez and Jake Greenbaum, whom he blamed for sabotaging the project. Coffeezilla criticized the structure of the buyback in a January 5, 2024 video. On June 27, 2024, despite having withdrawn his earlier threat, Paul filed a federal defamation lawsuit against Coffeezilla and Coffee Break Productions. The complaint focused on three later publications: Coffeezilla's June 29, 2023 X post, his June 30, 2023 video Logan Paul's Scam Isn't Over, and his January 5, 2024 video Logan Paul's Refund. Coffeezilla denied wrongdoing and characterized the lawsuit as an attempt to punish or silence his reporting. In March 2025, a magistrate judge recommended allowing Paul's claims to continue, and in May 2025 the district judge denied Coffeezilla's motion for judgment on the pleadings. Those rulings determined only that the claims could proceed and did not establish that Coffeezilla's statements were false, defamatory, or made with actual malice. Separately, CryptoZoo purchasers continued litigating Holland v. CryptoZoo. In October 2025, the court dismissed all 27 claims in the then-operative complaint, but granted leave to amend 26 of them. Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint in November, and Paul moved to dismiss that pleading in January 2026. In July 2026, Paul and Coffeezilla reported that they had reached a deal resolving the defamation dispute. No public merits verdict was issued, and the settlement terms were not publicly disclosed in the materials reviewed.

Timeline

42 events
Start of the conflictYOUTUBE · INITIALPrimary source

Logan Paul publicly promoted CryptoZoo as a game that could make players money

An official Impaulsive clip announced CryptoZoo and presented it as a blockchain-based game involving collectible animals. Paul described it as a fun game capable of making users money and discussed the resources being put into development. This promotional material became part of the factual background later examined by Coffeezilla and by CryptoZoo purchasers in litigation.

YouTube02:18Video sourceLOGAN PAUL ANNOUNCES DATE FOR HIS NFT PROJECT: CRYPTOZOOOpen on the platform ↗
All sources2
Checked August 17, 2021 at 07:00 PM
Start of the conflictYOUTUBE · INITIALPrimary source

Coffeezilla released Investigating Logan Paul's Biggest Scam

Coffeezilla published the first part of his CryptoZoo investigation. He described the promised game, interviewed purchasers who reported losses, examined the project's lack of working gameplay, and investigated claims that developers had not been paid. The title and scam characterization represent Coffeezilla's investigative conclusion, not a court finding that Logan Paul committed fraud.

YouTube04:36Video sourceInvestigating Logan Paul's Biggest ScamOpen on the platform ↗
Checked December 15, 2022 at 07:00 PM
CommentaryYOUTUBE · UPDATEPrimary source

Coffeezilla released The Biggest Fraud in Logan Paul's Scam

Part two focused heavily on Eduardo Ibanez and included reporting by Adam Robb. Coffeezilla examined alleged false claims about Ibanez's background and discussed statements from people involved in CryptoZoo about development and payment problems. The allegations concerning Ibanez are reported as claims documented by the investigation rather than independent judicial findings.

YouTube01:42Video sourceThe Biggest Fraud in Logan Paul's ScamOpen on the platform ↗
Checked December 19, 2022 at 07:00 PM
StatementYOUTUBE · STATEMENTPrimary source

Coffeezilla concluded the original investigation with Ending Logan Paul's Biggest Scam

In the third part, Coffeezilla examined Jake Greenbaum's token purchases and trading, internal text messages, and actions Paul took after suspicious trading was identified. Coffeezilla specifically noted evidence that Paul had never sold Zoo Tokens and that Paul minted a replacement token while blacklisting wallets associated with Greenbaum. Despite those facts, Coffeezilla argued that Paul was still responsible for promoting CryptoZoo and failing to deliver a viable game. That conclusion was Coffeezilla's position.

YouTube02:18Video sourceEnding Logan Paul's Biggest ScamOpen on the platform ↗
All sources2
Checked December 22, 2022 at 07:00 PM
ResponseX · RESPONSEPrimary source

Logan Paul publicly disputed Coffeezilla's investigation

Paul wrote that he appreciated Coffeezilla's creative work but said the CryptoZoo investigation was not true. He said what he described as bad actors would be exposed and announced that he would discuss the situation further on Impaulsive in early January. This was Paul's first direct public response to the completed series.

Public postLogan Paul response to Coffeezilla's CryptoZoo investigationOriginal post ↗
Checked December 23, 2022 at 08:43 PM
ResponseX · RESPONSEPrimary source

Coffeezilla said Paul had refused earlier interview requests

Coffeezilla responded that Paul had refused to speak with him during the investigation and had not publicly addressed CryptoZoo purchasers for an extended period. He challenged Paul's promise to expose bad actors and continued defending the reporting.

Public postCoffeezilla response to Logan Paul's statementOriginal post ↗
Checked December 23, 2022 at 09:26 PM
ResponseX · RESPONSEPrimary source

Logan Paul publicly invited Coffeezilla to appear on Impaulsive

Paul invited Coffeezilla to travel to Puerto Rico for an Impaulsive discussion and offered to cover travel expenses. The invitation was a direct continuation of the public exchange following Coffeezilla's investigation.

Public postLogan Paul invited Coffeezilla onto ImpaulsiveOriginal post ↗
All sources2
Checked December 26, 2022 at 06:04 PM
ResponseX · RESPONSEPrimary source

Coffeezilla rejected the Puerto Rico invitation and proposed a livestream instead

Coffeezilla said Paul had omitted an earlier email in which Coffeezilla had invited Paul to discuss the allegations alongside other CryptoZoo figures. He offered either to fly Paul to him or hold the conversation through a livestream and proposed directing livestream proceeds toward affected CryptoZoo purchasers and holders of another Paul-associated token. The post continued the disagreement about opportunities to respond.

Public postCoffeezilla response to Logan Paul's Impaulsive invitationOriginal post ↗
All sources2
Checked December 26, 2022 at 08:19 PM
ResponseYOUTUBE · RESPONSEPrimary source

Logan Paul released a response video and threatened a defamation lawsuit

Paul released a now-deleted video responding to Coffeezilla. He accused Coffeezilla of publishing a one-sided and misleading investigation, challenged the use of secretly recorded calls, criticized the backgrounds and credibility of sources, blamed project failures on people including Eduardo Ibanez and developer Zach Kelling, and threatened a defamation lawsuit. Paul told Coffeezilla to obtain a lawyer and indicated that they could meet in court. These accusations and defenses represented Paul's position and were not judicial findings.

YouTube01:42Video sourceReupload of Logan Paul's response to Coffeezilla's CryptoZoo investigationOpen on the platform ↗
All sources3
Checked January 2, 2023 at 07:00 PM
ResponseX · RESPONSEPrimary source

Coffeezilla publicly reacted to Paul's legal threat

Coffeezilla responded to the lawsuit threat and contrasted it with Paul's earlier public invitation to appear on Impaulsive. He treated the invitation and legal threat as contradictory and continued defending his investigation.

Public postCoffeezilla response to Logan Paul's lawsuit threatOriginal post ↗
Checked January 3, 2023 at 06:52 PM
CommentaryYOUTUBE · REACTIONPrimary source

MoistCr1TiKaL published Logan Paul Responded

MoistCr1TiKaL released a standalone reaction to Paul's response to Coffeezilla. The video criticized Paul's approach and discussed the evidence raised by both sides. It is third-party commentary and not an independent factual determination of fraud or defamation.

YouTube04:36Video sourceLogan Paul RespondedOpen on the platform ↗
Checked January 2, 2023 at 07:00 PM
ResponseX · RESPONSEPrimary source

Coffeezilla highlighted Paul's earlier support for his work

Coffeezilla posted material showing that Paul had previously subscribed to Coffeezilla's Patreon, promoted his work, and complimented his investigations. The post was a separate response to Paul's new criticism of Coffeezilla's reporting methods.

Public postCoffeezilla post about Logan Paul's earlier supportOriginal post ↗
Checked January 4, 2023 at 01:15 AM
ReactionX · REACTIONPrimary source

Coffeezilla joked about countersuing over an image used by Logan Paul

Coffeezilla published a separate joke saying that if Paul sued him, he would countersue over what he jokingly described as a defamatory image. The post did not announce an actual countersuit and should not be treated as a legal filing.

Public postCoffeezilla countersuit jokeOriginal post ↗
Checked January 4, 2023 at 07:50 PM
UpdateX · UPDATEPrimary source

Coffeezilla said Logan Paul called him and withdrew the lawsuit threat

Coffeezilla reported that Paul had called him, was deleting two public responses, and was dropping the lawsuit threats. Coffeezilla said he would delay his own planned response to include Paul's expected new statement and expressed hope that Paul would focus on accountability and refunds for CryptoZoo purchasers.

Public postCoffeezilla says Logan Paul dropped lawsuit threatsOriginal post ↗
Checked January 7, 2023 at 12:47 AM
ResponseDEXERTO · RESPONSEVerified by the editors

Logan Paul apologized to Coffeezilla and said his focus should be CryptoZoo

In a message posted to the CryptoZoo Discord community, Paul said his initial response had been rash and driven by pride, said he had called Coffeezilla and apologized, and stated that his fight was not with Coffeezilla. He thanked Coffeezilla for bringing problems involving other CryptoZoo figures to light and said he would take accountability and present a plan. A stable direct permalink to the original Discord message was not recovered.

Logan Paul apologizes to Coffeezilla and promises to take accountability for CryptoZoo ↗
All sources2
Checked January 6, 2023 at 07:00 PM
UpdateX · UPDATEPrimary source

Logan Paul announced a three-step CryptoZoo recovery plan

Paul announced a three-step plan and thanked Coffeezilla. The plan included Paul and Jeff Levin burning their Zoo Token holdings, a rewards or buyback program for disappointed holders of eligible Base Egg and Base Animal NFTs at the original 0.1 ETH mint price, and a commitment to finish and deliver the game. Paul described the rewards program as approximately $1.3 million at the time of the announcement. Later reporting used different dollar equivalents because the underlying ETH value changed.

Public postLogan Paul's three-step CryptoZoo planOriginal post ↗
All sources2
Checked January 13, 2023 at 01:08 PM
UpdateYOUTUBE · UPDATEPrimary source

Attorney Tom announced legal action by CryptoZoo purchasers

Attorney Tom published a video saying his legal team had begun pursuing claims on behalf of people who purchased CryptoZoo assets. He described potential claims against CryptoZoo, Logan Paul, and several project participants. The publication was an attorney's announcement of legal action and allegations, not a court determination of liability.

YouTube04:36Video sourceI'm Suing Logan Paul for Crypto Zoo (Arbitration)Open on the platform ↗
Checked January 15, 2023 at 07:00 PM
StatementYOUTUBE · STATEMENTPrimary source

Coffeezilla released Logan Paul Apologized To Me

Coffeezilla published a follow-up addressing Paul's apology and three-step plan. He focused on whether the promises would actually result in compensation for affected purchasers and linked viewers to legal efforts involving CryptoZoo buyers. The video marked the end of Coffeezilla's immediate January response cycle but not the end of his monitoring of the project.

YouTube01:42Video sourceLogan Paul Apologized To MeOpen on the platform ↗
Checked January 17, 2023 at 07:00 PM
UpdateU.S. DISTRICT COURT, W.D. TEXAS · UPDATEVerified by the editors

CryptoZoo purchasers filed Holland v. CryptoZoo

Don Holland filed a proposed class action in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas against CryptoZoo Inc., Logan Paul, Danielle Strobel, Jeffrey Levin, Eduardo Ibanez, Jake Greenbaum, and Ophir Bentov. The complaint alleged that purchasers were induced to buy CryptoZoo NFTs and tokens through false or misleading representations and asserted fraud and other causes of action. These were plaintiffs' allegations. No class had been certified and no defendant had been found liable at the time of filing.

Holland v. CryptoZoo, Inc. et al docket ↗
All sources2
Checked February 1, 2023 at 07:00 PM
StatementX · STATEMENTPrimary source

Coffeezilla said Paul blocked him after he continued asking about repayment

Coffeezilla posted screenshots and wrote that Paul had thanked him when the investigation exposed problems but later blocked him when Coffeezilla reminded him about repayment. In U.S. local time the post was published on June 29, and Paul's later defamation complaint identified it as the first of three allegedly defamatory publications. Whether its use of the term scam was legally defamatory remained disputed.

Public postCoffeezilla post about Logan Paul blocking himOriginal post ↗
All sources2
Checked June 29, 2023 at 09:35 PM
StatementYOUTUBE · STATEMENTPrimary source

Coffeezilla released Logan Paul's Scam Isn't Over

Six months after Paul's recovery announcement, Coffeezilla published a new video saying affected purchasers had not received the promised refund or meaningful updates. He reviewed communications with Paul's legal representatives and criticized the lack of a completed reimbursement process. Paul's later defamation complaint identified this as the second of three publications at issue and disputed Coffeezilla's characterization of Paul and CryptoZoo.

YouTube01:42Video sourceLogan Paul's Scam Isn't OverOpen on the platform ↗
All sources2
Checked June 29, 2023 at 07:00 PM
UpdateX · UPDATEPrimary source

Logan Paul launched a new CryptoZoo NFT buyback and said the game would not be released

Paul announced that he was personally committing more than $2.3 million to purchase eligible Base Egg and Base Animal NFTs at 0.1 ETH each. ZOO-token losses and some other CryptoZoo assets were excluded. The program required participants to release actual or anticipated legal claims against Paul related to CryptoZoo. Paul also said the game would not be released because of regulatory hurdles despite what he said was approximately $400,000 he had spent completing it. He maintained that he had not profited from CryptoZoo and again blamed other project participants for the failure.

Public postLogan Paul announced the CryptoZoo buybackOriginal post ↗
All sources3
Checked January 4, 2024 at 12:44 PM
UpdateTECHCRUNCH · UPDATEVerified by the editors

Logan Paul filed crossclaims against Eduardo Ibanez and Jake Greenbaum

Within the existing Holland v. CryptoZoo case, Paul filed an answer and crossclaims against Ibanez and Greenbaum. He alleged that they were con artists who deceived him, sabotaged CryptoZoo, and personally profited while he lost money. These allegations represented Paul's attempt to assign responsibility to his former collaborators and were not established facts merely because they appeared in a court filing.

Coverage of Logan Paul's CryptoZoo crossclaims ↗
All sources2
Checked January 3, 2024 at 07:00 PM
ResponseYOUTUBE · RESPONSEPrimary source

Coffeezilla released Logan Paul's Refund

Coffeezilla criticized the newly announced buyback, focusing on the requirement that participating holders waive legal claims, the exclusion of ZOO-token losses, and the limited group of assets eligible for purchase. He used strongly negative characterizations of Paul and the program. Paul's later federal complaint identified this video as the third allegedly defamatory publication. Those characterizations were disputed and were never adjudicated through a merits verdict.

YouTube01:42Video sourceLogan Paul's "Refund"Open on the platform ↗
All sources2
Checked January 4, 2024 at 07:00 PM
StatementYOUTUBE · STATEMENTPrimary source

Logan Paul again denied intentionally scamming CryptoZoo purchasers

In an interview with Graham Bensinger, Paul returned to CryptoZoo and said he had trusted the wrong people. He denied that his intention had been to scam purchasers and described himself as another person harmed by failures and alleged misconduct within the project. The interview continued Paul's public position that CryptoZoo was a failed business project rather than a deliberate fraud by him.

YouTube02:18Video sourceLogan Paul on Cryptozoo: I trusted some bad peopleOpen on the platform ↗
Checked March 27, 2024 at 07:00 PM
UpdateU.S. DISTRICT COURT, W.D. TEXAS · UPDATEVerified by the editors

Logan Paul filed a federal defamation lawsuit against Coffeezilla

Paul filed Paul v. Findeisen in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas against Stephen Findeisen and Coffee Break Productions LLC. He asserted three defamation claims and sought damages exceeding $75,000 plus punitive damages. Although the December 2022 series formed important background to the complaint, the three publications identified as the allegedly defamatory statements were Coffeezilla's June 29, 2023 X post, the June 30, 2023 video Logan Paul's Scam Isn't Over, and the January 5, 2024 video Logan Paul's Refund. Paul alleged that Coffeezilla knowingly or recklessly portrayed him as the perpetrator of a scam despite evidence that Paul himself had been deceived by other CryptoZoo figures. These were allegations in Paul's complaint and had not been proven when filed.

Paul v. Findeisen et al docket ↗
All sources2
Checked June 26, 2024 at 07:00 PM
CommentaryYOUTUBE · REACTIONPrimary source

LegalEagle published an analysis of Paul's defamation lawsuit

LegalEagle released a standalone video analyzing the complaint and discussing the legal standards for defamation, opinion, factual assertions, and actual malice. The video's negative assessment of Paul's case was third-party legal commentary and not a judicial ruling.

YouTube01:42Video sourceLogan Paul sued Coffeezilla and it's Crap (ft. Coffeezilla's Lawyers)Open on the platform ↗
Checked July 19, 2024 at 07:00 PM
ResponseYOUTUBE · RESPONSEPrimary source

Coffeezilla released Logan Paul Sued Me

Coffeezilla publicly responded to the filed complaint and described it as groundless. He argued that the lawsuit was intended to punish or silence his reporting and suggested that its timing was connected to a separate investigation he was conducting into Liquid Marketplace, another company associated with Paul. The claim about Paul's motive for filing the lawsuit was Coffeezilla's theory and was not independently established by the filing date alone.

YouTube02:18Video sourceLogan Paul Sued MeOpen on the platform ↗
Checked August 4, 2024 at 07:00 PM
UpdateU.S. DISTRICT COURT, W.D. TEXAS · UPDATEVerified by the editors

Coffeezilla and Coffee Break Productions filed their answer with a jury demand

Findeisen and Coffee Break Productions formally answered Paul's federal complaint and demanded a jury. The filing confirmed that Coffeezilla would defend the case rather than default or immediately settle.

Paul v. Findeisen docket, Filing 9 ↗
Checked August 4, 2024 at 07:00 PM
UpdateSCRIBD · UPDATEVerified by the editors

The parties jointly requested a protective order for discovery

Paul and the Coffeezilla defendants jointly asked the court to enter the Western District of Texas standard protective order governing confidential material exchanged during discovery. The filing was procedural and did not indicate agreement on the merits of the defamation claims.

Paul v. Findeisen Joint Motion for Entry of Protective Order ↗
Checked November 13, 2024 at 07:00 PM
CommentaryTRELLIS · UPDATEVerified by the editors

Paul sought discovery that Coffeezilla withheld under Texas journalist privilege

During discovery, Paul's side argued that Coffeezilla was withholding thousands of documents and communications under Texas's journalist privilege and sought access to material it considered relevant to Coffeezilla's knowledge and editorial process. The filing argued that the privilege was qualified rather than absolute. The discovery dispute did not itself determine whether Coffeezilla qualified as a journalist or whether the challenged publications were defamatory.

Paul v. Findeisen discovery filing concerning journalist privilege ↗
Checked February 1, 2025 at 07:00 PM
CommentaryU.S. DISTRICT COURT, W.D. TEXAS · UPDATEVerified by the editors

Magistrate judge recommended denying Coffeezilla's motion for judgment on the pleadings

Magistrate Judge Henry J. Bemporad recommended that the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings be denied. The report concluded that, in the context of Coffeezilla's investigative reporting, statements accusing the organizer of a financial venture of perpetrating a scam could be understood as objectively verifiable assertions rather than automatically protected subjective opinion. The recommendation did not decide that Paul's allegations were true, that Coffeezilla's statements were false, or that Coffeezilla acted with actual malice.

Paul v. Findeisen, Report and Recommendation, March 26 2025 ↗
Checked March 25, 2025 at 07:00 PM
CommentaryU.S. DISTRICT COURT, W.D. TEXAS · UPDATEVerified by the editors

Coffeezilla objected to the magistrate judge's recommendation

The defendants filed timely objections to the March recommendation. They argued that the use of scam in the challenged context was non-actionable opinion and incapable of being proven true or false. The objections preserved Coffeezilla's argument for review by the district judge.

Paul v. Findeisen, Order describing defendants' April 9 objections ↗
Checked April 8, 2025 at 07:00 PM
CommentaryU.S. DISTRICT COURT, W.D. TEXAS · UPDATEVerified by the editors

District judge allowed Paul's defamation claims to continue past the pleadings motion

Judge Orlando L. Garcia adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation and denied the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings. The court concluded that the challenged use of scam could be susceptible to objective verification in the context of specialized investigative reporting. This was a procedural ruling allowing the lawsuit to continue. It was not a finding that Coffeezilla defamed Paul, that the statements were false, or that Coffeezilla acted with actual malice.

Paul v. Findeisen, Order Adopting Report and Recommendation ↗
All sources2
Checked May 21, 2025 at 07:00 PM
UpdateU.S. DISTRICT COURT, W.D. TEXAS · UPDATEVerified by the editors

Paul's request for default judgment against Ibanez and Greenbaum was denied without prejudice

In the separate Holland v. CryptoZoo litigation, Judge Alan Albright denied without prejudice Paul's motion for default judgment on his crossclaims against Eduardo Ibanez and Jake Greenbaum. The ruling did not decide that Paul's allegations against them were false. It meant that the requested default judgment was not granted at that stage.

Holland v. CryptoZoo, Filing 114 ↗
Checked October 22, 2025 at 07:00 PM
UpdateU.S. DISTRICT COURT, W.D. TEXAS · UPDATEVerified by the editors

Claims against Jeffrey Levin and Ophir Bentov were dismissed without prejudice

The court granted Levin and Bentov's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and dismissed the purchasers' claims against them without prejudice. This was a jurisdictional ruling rather than a merits finding concerning the underlying CryptoZoo allegations.

Holland v. CryptoZoo, Filing 115 ↗
Checked October 22, 2025 at 07:00 PM
CommentaryU.S. DISTRICT COURT, W.D. TEXAS · UPDATEVerified by the editors

The court dismissed all 27 claims in the operative CryptoZoo purchaser complaint

Judge Alan Albright granted Logan Paul's motion to dismiss the then-operative complaint in Holland v. CryptoZoo. All 27 claims were dismissed, but the procedural effect differed by count: plaintiffs received leave to amend Counts 1 through 26, while Count 27 was dismissed with prejudice. The order therefore did not permanently terminate all purchaser claims against Paul. Plaintiffs were expressly permitted to re-plead most of them.

Holland v. CryptoZoo, Order Adopting Report and Recommendation ↗
Checked October 28, 2025 at 07:00 PM
UpdateOPENCLASSACTIONS · UPDATEVerified by the editors

CryptoZoo purchasers filed a Second Amended Complaint

After receiving leave to amend most of their dismissed claims, the purchasers filed a Second Amended Complaint. The filing continued the proposed class action rather than ending it after the October dismissal. No class had been certified.

Logan Paul's CryptoZoo Class Action: Dismissed, Re-Pleaded, and Awaiting a New Ruling ↗
Checked November 11, 2025 at 07:00 PM
CommentaryROPES & GRAY / JD SUPRA · UPDATEVerified by the editors

Logan Paul moved to dismiss the Second Amended CryptoZoo complaint

Paul filed a new motion asking the court to dismiss the purchasers' revised pleading. Among other arguments, his motion disputed theories that would make him personally liable for CryptoZoo's conduct and challenged the purchasers' treatment of CryptoZoo NFTs and ZOO tokens as securities. These were Paul's legal arguments awaiting judicial resolution.

Crypto Quarterly: Digital Assets, Blockchain, and Related Technologies Update - Q1 2026 ↗
All sources2
Checked January 29, 2026 at 07:00 PM
CommentaryROPES & GRAY / JD SUPRA · RESPONSEVerified by the editors

CryptoZoo purchasers opposed Paul's renewed motion to dismiss

The purchasers filed a response to Paul's January motion. They argued that Paul could be held responsible for CryptoZoo's alleged conduct and continued asserting that the project's NFTs and ZOO token functioned as investment assets under their pleaded theory. These remained plaintiffs' legal and factual allegations rather than established findings.

Crypto Quarterly: Digital Assets, Blockchain, and Related Technologies Update - Q1 2026 ↗
Checked March 15, 2026 at 07:00 PM
CommentaryLAW360 · RESOLUTIONVerified by the editors

Logan Paul and Coffeezilla reported a deal resolving the defamation dispute

Law360 reported that Paul and the Coffeezilla defendants said they had reached an agreement to resolve Paul's defamation claims. The available public report did not disclose the settlement terms and did not report a trial verdict, finding of defamation, finding that Coffeezilla's CryptoZoo characterizations were false, or judicial finding that Paul had committed fraud. The resolution therefore ended the public litigation path through settlement rather than a merits judgment.

Logan Paul, YouTube Crypto Critic End Defamation Dispute ↗
Checked July 22, 2026 at 07:00 PM
Latest updateCommentaryPODBEAN · REACTION2 confirmations

LegalBytes published a post-settlement analysis of Paul v. Coffeezilla

LegalBytes released a new episode titled Why Logan Paul Quietly Failed at Suing Coffeezilla. The episode reconstructed the investigation, lawsuit, discovery process, and settlement and argued that the overall outcome represented a failure for Paul. That conclusion is LegalBytes' third-party legal commentary. The publicly available settlement terms do not independently establish which party obtained more favorable confidential terms.

052 Why Logan Paul Quietly Failed at Suing Coffeezilla | LAWYER EXPLAINS ↗
All sources2
Checked August 17, 2026 at 09:00 AM