In a legal saga that has gripped both political and legal observers, software engineer Robert Zeidman is taking his fight to the highest court in the land after a federal appeals court overturned his $5 million victory against MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell. The case, which began as a public challenge to debunk Lindell’s persistent claims of 2020 election fraud, now threatens to reshape the future of arbitration in the United States and raises fresh questions about the power of wealth in the American legal system.
Back in the summer of 2021, the nation was still reeling from the aftermath of the contentious 2020 presidential election. Mike Lindell, an outspoken supporter of former President Donald Trump, announced with great fanfare his so-called “Cyber Symposium” in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. The event promised to reveal explosive data that, according to Lindell, would prove that U.S. voting machines had been hacked by China to tip the election in favor of Joe Biden. To add fuel to the fire, Lindell offered a $5 million reward to anyone who could “Prove Mike Wrong.”
Robert Zeidman, a seasoned software forensic scientist and, notably, a Trump supporter himself, accepted the challenge. According to Law&Crime, Zeidman anticipated weeks or months of analysis, but within just three hours, he concluded that Lindell’s data was “completely bogus.” Zeidman compiled a 15-page report, submitted it to the symposium’s director, and waited. After a month of silence, he turned to legal counsel and initiated arbitration, as outlined in the contest’s rules.
What followed was a year-and-a-half-long arbitration process, featuring depositions, expert testimony, and a deep dive into the technical claims. In April 2023, a unanimous three-person arbitration panel ruled in Zeidman’s favor, finding that he had indeed proven Lindell wrong and awarding him the $5 million prize. The arbitrators focused on whether Lindell’s data contained “packet data” — electronic data typically transferred over the internet — that could be linked to the 2020 election. Zeidman demonstrated that it did not, a finding that was ultimately confirmed by Lindell’s own expert witness during the proceedings.
But the story didn’t end there. In October 2023, Lindell challenged the arbitration ruling in federal court. Judge John R. Tunheim, after hearing arguments from both sides, ruled in February 2024 that he was bound by the arbitration decision, even as he questioned whether he would have decided the case the same way. This, as Zeidman noted in his op-ed for Slate, is how the Federal Arbitration Act has worked since its inception in 1925: arbitration decisions are meant to be final and binding, providing a quicker and less expensive alternative to drawn-out court battles.
However, Lindell appealed yet again, this time to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit. In July 2025, a three-judge panel delivered a stunning reversal, voiding Zeidman’s award. According to Raw Story, the panel’s reasoning hinged on the precise wording of the contest rules. While Lindell’s public statements had promised to provide “cyber data and packet captures from the 2020 November election,” the actual contest rules were broader, stating that to win, participants had to “prove that the data Lindell provides… unequivocally does NOT reflect information related to the November 2020 election.”
The crux of the appellate court’s decision was that, although Zeidman had demonstrated the data was not the specific kind of “packet data” Lindell claimed, he had not proven that the data was not “related” to the election in any conceivable way. As Slate reported, Zeidman argued that such an interpretation would render the contest unwinnable, since Lindell could simply declare any random data as “related” to the election. The arbitration panel had agreed, noting in their decision that “defining data as being merely ‘about the election’ or ‘relating to the election’ ignores the Contest rules’ reference to data ‘from the election’ and reference to ‘election data.’ These terms require that the data not merely be about the election, but must be from the election process itself.”
Zeidman was left reeling by the reversal. “This decision is not only bad for me, but bad for America,” he wrote in his Slate column. He contends that the ruling undermines both the integrity of the U.S. voting system and the effectiveness of the arbitration process. “It upends the century-old Federal Arbitration Act and it diverts resources from legitimate investigations for improving our voting system to crazy conspiracies from wealthy plutocrats. I’m hoping the Supreme Court will reconsider this harmful ruling.”
Beyond the specifics of the contest, Zeidman’s case has emerged as a flashpoint in the broader debate over arbitration in America. Arbitration, by design, is supposed to provide a faster, more accessible path to justice for individuals without deep pockets. Yet, as Zeidman told Law&Crime, the appeals court’s decision “runs contrary to the purpose of binding arbitration.” He warned, “If this decision stands, it will be a devastating blow to arbitration in America because it means any ‘binding arbitration decision’ can be brought to court and litigated at great length and with potential success. Arbitration outcomes will become a war of attrition, with the wealthier party having the resources to wait out a possible victory rather than taking the clear loss.”
Zeidman’s lawyers, Brian Glasser and Cary Joshi of Bailey Glasser LLP, have announced their intention to petition the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the 8th Circuit’s ruling. As of September 15, 2025, Zeidman had not yet formally filed his Supreme Court application, but he remained resolute. “My effort to overturn this decision is not about the money,” he insisted. “This case is about our country and its principles. First, I believe that most Americans want voting to be fair and dependable. We also don’t want any foreign government, large corporation, political organization, wealthy individual, extremist activist, or misguided hacker interfering with our voting systems by any means.”
The case has also highlighted the challenges faced by individuals who take on wealthy and well-connected opponents. Zeidman, who has now spent four years and significant personal resources pursuing his claim, believes his experience exposes a troubling reality: “The wealthiest litigants are often the most successful,” he told Law&Crime. “We can’t let wealthy plutocrats twist the legal system in this way.”
As the legal battle heads to the Supreme Court, the outcome could have far-reaching implications for both the future of American elections and the viability of arbitration as a tool for ordinary citizens seeking justice. Whether the justices will agree to hear Zeidman’s case remains to be seen, but the stakes are clear: at issue is not just a $5 million prize, but the very principles of fairness, finality, and access to justice in the U.S. legal system.
For now, Zeidman’s fight continues—a testament to the complexities of American law and the enduring struggle to ensure that justice is not reserved for the highest bidder.
