MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell is facing legal pressure for failing to comply with a court-ordered payment related to a previous lawsuit. A recent filing in a Washington, D.C., federal court seeks to hold Lindell in civil contempt for not paying a $56,369 sanction stemming from what was deemed a frivolous lawsuit.
The case originated from a lawsuit filed by a voting software company against Lindell and MyPillow over claims made about the 2020 election. Lindell then countersued multiple voting companies but lost. One of the companies moved for sanctions, which the court granted. Though the ruling came in 2022, the financial penalty was not finalized until early 2025, when a judge substantially reduced Lindell’s liability and ordered him to pay.
Despite the order, Lindell has not made the required payment or engaged in meaningful discussions regarding its terms. Nearly three years after the initial ruling, the company still has not received compensation. In early February, Lindell proposed making payments in $5,000 monthly installments instead of a lump sum. However, he provided no documentation supporting an inability to pay in full. The company rejected the installment offer and instead sent Lindell a finalized escrow agreement.
By late February, Lindell was asked to confirm whether he would sign the agreement and make the payment. According to the legal filing, he has since failed to respond, revise the agreement, or pay the sanction. The company argues that the case meets the necessary legal standards for civil contempt, which require a clear court order, an obligation to act, and failure to comply.
The motion highlights Lindell’s refusal to provide financial information in a separate case, which has already led to a contempt ruling in another federal court. That case, unrelated to the current motion, further complicates his legal troubles.
In pushing for contempt, the filing asserts that Lindell has not disputed the terms of the escrow agreement but has simply refused to comply. It also states that claims of financial hardship are unsubstantiated, as he has not provided supporting evidence.
As the case unfolds, it remains to be seen how the court will respond to the request for contempt charges.
