Logan Paul's defamation lawsuit against YouTube investigator Stephen “Coffeezilla” Findeisen ended in July without a trial, a verdict, or a public ruling that either man's account of CryptoZoo was correct.
Another part of the public record has changed: the three later publications tied to the libel counts in Paul's complaint are no longer available at their known URLs.
Coffeezilla's original December 2022 three-part CryptoZoo investigation remains public. But X now returns a post-not-found page for the June 29, 2023 post identified in the first count. YouTube says the June 30, 2023 video “Logan Paul's Scam Isn't Over” and the Jan. 5, 2024 video “Logan Paul's 'Refund'” are not available anymore.
The public evidence reviewed by Boho News does not establish that the settlement caused any of the three items to become unavailable.
A Feb. 17, 2025 filing by Findeisen and Coffee Break Productions stated that both challenged YouTube videos were still publicly available at that time. The parties told the court on July 13, 2026 that they had reached a negotiated resolution. On July 21, they stipulated to dismiss the action with prejudice, with each side bearing its own attorney's fees and costs.
That chronology creates a question; it does not answer it. A video can be deleted, made private, made unlisted, restricted, or removed by a platform. An X post can become unavailable for several reasons. Neither the public settlement advisory nor the dismissal stipulation says that removal was a term of the parties' agreement.
The original series and the sued-over publications are different
Paul's complaint discussed Coffeezilla's three-part December 2022 CryptoZoo investigation at length. Online summaries have sometimes compressed the case into a lawsuit over that original series.
The complaint's three libel counts, however, concerned later publications.
The first count concerned a June 29, 2023 X post in which Findeisen said Paul had thanked him for exposing the project and then blocked him when reminded to pay. The second concerned the next day's video, “Logan Paul's Scam Isn't Over.” The third concerned the January 2024 “Refund” video criticizing Paul's CryptoZoo buyback program.
Paul alleged that those publications falsely portrayed him as having engaged in intentional financial fraud. Findeisen and Coffee Break Productions denied liability. Because the parties resolved the case before trial, no judge or jury ultimately decided whether the challenged statements were true, false, defamatory, protected, published with legally sufficient fault, or damaging in an amount recoverable at trial.
The distinction now matters for a separate reason. The December 2022 trilogy remained public during Boho News's Aug. 22 check, while the three later publications pleaded in the counts did not.
What the court decided - and what it did not
Findeisen and Coffee Break Productions moved for judgment on the pleadings in February 2025. Their filing argued, among other things, that terms such as “scam” and “con” were nonactionable opinion or rhetorical hyperbole. The filing also stated that the complaint's hyperlinks led to two videos that were “still publicly available online.”
In May 2025, U.S. District Judge Orlando L. Garcia adopted a magistrate judge's recommendation and denied that motion. The court wrote that statements by a specialized investigative journalist accusing the organizer of a financial venture of defrauding investors were susceptible to objective verification.
That ruling allowed the pleaded claims to continue. It was not a finding that Findeisen's statements were false, that Paul proved actual malice or damages, or that CryptoZoo operated lawfully. It did not resolve the merits.
A dismissal with prejudice, but no public merits winner
On July 13, the parties jointly advised the Western District of Texas that they had reached a “negotiated resolution” and expected to file dismissal papers. Eight days later, they filed a joint stipulation dismissing the action with prejudice and allocating each side its own fees and costs.
A dismissal with prejudice makes the dismissal final as to this action. It does not transform a private settlement into a verdict.
The two public settlement-stage filings reviewed by Boho News do not disclose a payment, apology, correction, retraction, admission, confidentiality term, nondisparagement term, future-reporting restriction, or content-availability requirement. Their silence does not prove that a private agreement lacks any of those terms. It means the public filings do not support a claim that one exists.
Boho News sent detailed written questions to counsel for Paul and Findeisen on Aug. 22. The newsroom separately contacted Paul at a publicly reported business address, WME's official press address and Coffeezilla at a publicly reported business address. The questions asked when the publications became unavailable, whether the settlement addressed their availability, whether a payment, apology, correction, retraction or admission was part of the resolution, and whether the agreement restricts either party's speech.
Neither Paul nor Findeisen, their counsel, nor the additional contacts responded by the noon Central Aug. 25 deadline.
Unless a party answers or additional settlement terms become public, the defensible conclusion remains narrow: Paul obtained no public verdict on his libel allegations, Findeisen obtained no final merits judgment dismissing them, and the three publications tied to the counts are unavailable for reasons the public record reviewed by Boho News does not explain.
Methodology
Boho News compared the complaint, Findeisen's February 2025 motion, the court's May 2025 order, the July settlement advisory, and the July dismissal stipulation with the publications' known platform URLs. The newsroom repeated the six direct platform checks after the comment deadline on Aug. 25. X returned a post-not-found page for the challenged post. YouTube displayed “This video isn't available anymore” for each challenged video. The three original December 2022 videos each displayed a public watch page. CourtListener listed July 21 as the date of the last known filing when checked Aug. 25.
“Unavailable at the known URL” is not synonymous with “deleted by the creator.” Platform state can change; Boho News will check the six URLs again if publication does not promptly follow this final review.