SM Entertainment has received approval from a US federal court to pursue information identifying the operators of two anonymous X accounts linked to campaigns supporting former RIIZE member Seunghan. But despite headlines suggesting the accounts have been unmasked, the people behind them have not been publicly identified. According to Korean reporting published October 16, a Texas court approved a request for discovery on October 14, allowing SM to pursue information from X Corp. The development has renewed attention on Seunghan’s departure and a difficult question for K-pop fandoms: where does organized criticism of an entertainment agency end, and where might conduct that interferes with its operations begin?
South Korea’s Sisa Journal reported that SM filed its US discovery application on October 5, nine days before the US District Court for the Western District of Texas approved it. The request targeted two accounts whose handles were partially concealed in the reporting. Both were associated with campaigns seeking Seunghan’s return to RIIZE, including boycotts, hashtag activity and criticism of the agency’s handling of his departure. SM had previously pursued civil lawsuits involving the operators at the Seoul Eastern District Court in 2025. The American proceedings were intended to help establish the identities needed for those Korean cases, not to resolve the underlying disputes in the United States.
The distinction matters because obtaining permission to seek identifying information is not the same as receiving it. According to the Korean reports, X may object to the request or seek further court review, potentially delaying disclosure. Even if the company ultimately provides information, the discovery decision would not determine whether the operators acted unlawfully or whether SM should prevail in Korea. The reporting also cited a comparable effort by IU’s agency to obtain information from Meta, where questions involving user notification and the scope of the request complicated the process. The Texas court’s reported nine-day turnaround therefore should not be mistaken for confirmation that the individuals will be identified just as quickly.
The allegations go beyond critical posts or hashtags. According to coverage of SM’s application, one account operator allegedly encouraged repeated submissions to KWANGYA 119, the company’s artist protection and reporting platform, as part of a campaign demanding Seunghan’s return. SM reportedly cited instructions urging participants to create multiple accounts and alter their browsing or connection settings to get around a restriction on repeated submissions within 10 minutes. The agency argued that these activities overwhelmed the intended reporting process. These details describe accusations presented in support of SM’s request; they do not establish that every submission was coordinated, that a particular individual personally sent the reports or that the operators violated the law.
The reported figures are substantial. SM allegedly classified approximately 3,368 Seunghan-related submissions on October 15, 2024, as spam or organized activity, while the cumulative number cited through August 7, 2025, reached about 32,785. That is a count of submissions presented by SM, not 32,785 identified fans or independently confirmed violations. The company also accused the second account operator of organizing balloons, banners, advertising vehicles and illuminated displays near its headquarters without permission, allegedly interfering with operations and requiring staff intervention. Whether those actions created legally actionable interference remains unresolved. The dispute is therefore not simply about whether fans were allowed to express disagreement, but about specific activities SM claims went beyond criticism.
The case arrives against the painful history of Seunghan’s departure from RIIZE. He suspended group activities in November 2023 following controversy involving material from his private life. In October 2024, SM announced that he would return, only for the plan to be withdrawn amid opposition from sections of the fandom. Seunghan subsequently left the group. Supporters continued organizing campaigns seeking his reinstatement, an apology and measures to restore his reputation. The protest displays attributed to the accounts in the present case should not be confused with the funeral wreaths sent by people opposing his return in October 2024. Those were separate actions associated with opposing positions, an important distinction in a dispute that has often divided online discussion.
SM’s latest move also sits within a broader company strategy concerning anonymous online activity. In an October 12 notice on KWANGYA 119, the agency said it was pursuing identification procedures through US courts involving accounts accused of posting malicious material about its artists. The statement described wider enforcement efforts across platforms including X, YouTube, Instagram and TikTok. However, it did not specifically identify the two Seunghan-related accounts discussed in the October 16 reporting, and should not be presented as a direct public statement about this particular discovery application. That distinction matters because SM’s general campaign against malicious content and its specific allegations involving organized fan submissions are not necessarily the same legal issue.
The proceedings have also drawn attention to the role anonymity plays in K-pop fandom. Pseudonymous accounts are widely used to discuss agency decisions, coordinate fan projects and criticize the treatment of artists. In online discussions about the Seunghan case, some commenters questioned why SM pursued accounts associated with demands for his return, while others focused on the allegations involving repeated submissions and protest installations. Those reactions reflect disagreement among individual users, not a measured consensus among RIIZE fans. Criticizing an agency, participating in a boycott and carrying out conduct alleged to disrupt operations are different activities. The available reporting does not establish that the court has treated ordinary criticism itself as unlawful.
For now, the outcome remains narrower than claims that two Seunghan supporters have already been exposed. The US court reportedly authorized a procedural step, while the question of whether X will provide identifying information and whether SM’s underlying allegations can be established remains open. Seunghan himself is not identified as a party to the proceedings, and there is no verified evidence that he directed the accounts or participated in the legal action. For fans on either side of the debate, the next meaningful development will come from the legal process rather than speculation about anonymous users. The order may advance SM’s attempt to identify the operators, but it has not settled the disagreement over Seunghan’s departure or determined where lawful fan advocacy ends and actionable interference begins.