What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
The reported case is about a $5 million challenge prize—not a confirmed order requiring Mike Lindell to pay attorney fees. An arbitration panel ruled for software developer Robert Zeidman, but that award was later reversed and vacated. In August 2026, a federal district court sent the dispute back to the original arbitration panel for a rehearing; the sources available for this article do not report the rehearing’s outcome.
What did the “Prove Mike Wrong” challenge promise?
At a 2021 Cyber Symposium in South Dakota, Lindell Management LLC (LMC), Lindell’s company, offered a “Prove Mike Wrong” challenge. Participants were asked to show that data supplied for the challenge did not reflect information related to the November 2020 election. The challenge rules, as reproduced in the Eighth Circuit’s July 23, 2025 opinion in Zeidman v. Lindell Management LLC, No. 24-1608, said the data had to “unequivocally does NOT reflect information related to the November 2020 election.”
| # | Preview | Product | Price | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
|
What Are the Odds? | $7.34 | Buy on Amazon |
| 2 |
|
Mike Lindell My Pillow Guy Illustration Sticker Vinyl Decal Bumper Sticker 5" | $4.95 | Buy on Amazon |
| 3 |
|
America: Unite or Die: How to Save Our Democracy | $14.99 | Buy on Amazon |
| 4 |
|
MyPillow, My Governor? | Buy on Amazon |
Zeidman, an engineer and software developer, examined eleven files and submitted a fifteen-page report. He argued that the files did not contain packet-capture data (PCAP) and had no information related to the election. Judges selected by LMC rejected his claim, so Zeidman invoked arbitration under the challenge rules.
How did the $5 million award change?
| Stage | Decision-maker | Legal effect |
|---|---|---|
| 2023 arbitration | Three-member arbitration panel | The panel unanimously found Zeidman had won and ordered LMC to pay the $5 million prize. |
| February 2024 | U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota | Judge John Tunheim confirmed the award. Contemporary reporting said the order included post-judgment interest. |
| July 23, 2025 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit | The appellate court reversed the confirmation, concluding the arbitration panel exceeded its authority under Minnesota law. |
| August 2026 | U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota | Judge Tunheim vacated the award and ordered a rehearing before the original arbitration panel, directing it to reconsider the dispute in light of the appellate decision. |
The panel’s initial reasoning treated proof that the files were not PCAP data as proof that they were not from the election process. The Eighth Circuit said the challenge rules were unambiguous and did not require PCAP data. Because the panel used outside evidence to add that requirement to the contract, the appellate court held that it had exceeded its authority. The court wrote, “Whatever one might think of the logic of the panel’s reasoning, it is contrary to Minnesota law.”
PC Slower Than It Used to Be?
A free scan shows the junk files, broken settings and background clutter dragging Windows down - then fixes them in one click.Free scan · Windows 10 & 11Outdated Drivers Are Slowing You Down
One free scan finds every outdated or missing driver and matches the right update for your exact hardware.Free scan · exact hardware match#1 Best Overall
- Due to the holographic cover this will not be accepted into prisons/jails. Please choose the prison approved version.
Does Lindell have to pay Zeidman now?
The original award is no longer a confirmed award that can be described as finally upheld: the Eighth Circuit reversed the district court’s confirmation, and the district court later vacated the award and ordered rehearing. The dispute has returned to the original arbitration panel, and the sources available for this article do not state what the panel decided on rehearing. The $5 million is the challenge prize at issue, not a presently established payment due under a final, affirmed award.
The defendant identified in the case is Lindell Management LLC, not Lindell individually. The appellate ruling addressed the arbitration panel’s authority under the challenge contract; it did not decide whether the 2020 election was stolen or resolve the truth of Lindell’s broader election claims.
Rank #2
- Size - 5" Printed on 6 Mil Vinyl for Easy Application
- Will stick to just about any flat or slightly curved surface. Use it on cars, walls, windows, plastics, metal, wood, poles and more.
- We print using the highest resolution graphics 1200 DPI so you get vibrant colors and sharp bold images
- Weather Resistant - all vinyl stickers feature a premium UV Resistant coating to protect them from sunlight and exposure to harsh weather
- Designed and Made in the USA
Was there a separate order for legal fees?
The available reporting and court-history sources document the $5 million challenge award, its reversal, and the order for rehearing. They do not establish a separate order directing Lindell or LMC to pay Zeidman’s attorney fees. That does not prove no such order exists; it means the legal-fee claim in the supplied headline is not supported by the sources available here. The documented $5 million figure should not be described as legal fees.
Quick Recap
Rank #4
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
