The established record
Robert Zeidman examined eleven contest files and said they contained no packet-capture data or information related to the 2020 election. Arbitrators awarded him $5 million, and a district court confirmed it.12 The Eighth Circuit reversed because the panel used outside evidence to add a PCAP requirement the signed rules did not contain.3 That contract holding did not authenticate the files or prove election interference.
What Lindell's company promised
Lindell Management LLC offered an aggregate $5 million to qualified participants who could prove with “100% degree of certainty” that supplied data was not reflective of November 2020 election data. The rules required disputes to go to binding arbitration.3
Not MyPillow's judgment
Lindell Management LLC created the challenge and was the respondent. Mike Lindell owned and operated it. My Pillow, Inc. was not the sponsor or judgment debtor identified in these records.
What the eleven files showed in the first hearing
The arbitration record describes video, text, PDF, spreadsheet, and binary files. It records testimony that several files lacked packets, timestamps, votes, voters, or verifiable capture provenance; the three large binary files did not open as packet captures in Wireshark.1
Those are findings recited in an award that has since been vacated. They remain part of the proceeding's history, but they are not a currently binding judgment—and the eleven contest files should not be presented as everything Lindell ever claimed to possess.
Why the appeals court reversed
The written rules did not say “packet capture,” “PCAP,” “China,” “vote switching,” or require a contestant to disprove foreign interference. The arbitrators used Lindell's promotion, testimony, and other outside material to treat election data as PCAP data. The Eighth Circuit held that this added a condition to unambiguous rules and exceeded the panel's authority.3
Lindell Management therefore won the appeal. It did not win a judicial finding that the files were real election packet captures, that China interfered, or that any vote changed.
Where it stands now
The Supreme Court declined to hear Zeidman's appeal in January 2026.4 On August 12, the district court vacated the old award, ordered a rehearing before the original arbitration panel, and stayed the federal action until further order.5 No new award or verified payment is established in the public primary record reviewed through August 23.
The contest terms, eleven supplied files, original unanimous award, district confirmation, appellate reversal, Supreme Court denial, vacatur, ordered rehearing, and federal stay.
Not establishedThat a court proved Lindell's entire election theory false; that the appeal validated his data; that MyPillow owed the award; or that Zeidman presently holds an enforceable $5 million judgment.
Receipts 001–005
The challenge and its reversals
Claim map
Three questions, kept separate
- Technical
- What the eleven files contained and what the first hearing record said about them.
- Contractual
- Whether Zeidman's showing met the exact written rules; that question has returned to arbitration.
- Election
- None of these tribunals conducted a statewide contest, recounted votes, or found that foreign interference changed the result.
- Corporate
- Lindell Management LLC—not My Pillow, Inc.—was the contracting party and respondent.
- Not established
- A current award, verified payment, authenticated election packets, or changed votes.
Last updated: August 23, 2026.