A lawsuit was filed against blogger Sergei Kosenko for alleged drug propaganda connected to a Telegram channel named Attention, news, with reference to an administrative protocol received by the Moscow Nikulinsky Court. The dispute centers on claims that content shared through the channel constitutes drug propaganda and may fall within the scope of applicable laws. Court records indicate the case is under review, though details about the exact charges or the procedural steps have not been fully disclosed to the public. The situation has drawn attention to the blogger amid broader discussions about online material and public safety in the digital space.
At this stage, it is not clear which courtroom or which specific procedural stage will host the hearing, and no date has been officially set for the case. Officials have not released a timetable, and observers note that early-stage proceedings in this area often proceed with limited public information while investigators gather evidence and prepare formal charges. The absence of a fixed date does not mean the matter is dormant; it simply reflects the initial phase of a legal process that can unfold over weeks or months as new materials are reviewed and witnesses are questioned.
The dispute arises in a context where the blogger previously attracted widespread attention for a January 2024 incident. Reports described a controversial video involving a two-month-old infant, which prompted scrutiny from authorities. The blogger has asserted that the footage did not show a real child and that editing had been used to insert a face, a claim supported by the person representing the blogger. The Investigative Committee, at the direction of Chairman Alexander Bastrykin, announced the initiation of criminal proceedings related to the matter. The blogger has maintained a willingness to cooperate with investigators, while his defense team has stated that the video was manipulated and that cooperation with the inquiry is forthcoming.
In August, the blogger closed his company, a move described in public sources as tied to multimillion-dollar debts and ongoing financial pressures. The development occurred amid broader questions about the blogger’s activities and their potential consequences. While official statements on the financial matter were limited, observers note that such corporate restructurings often accompany periods of legal scrutiny and reputational risk for online personalities.
Earlier reporting indicated that the blogger’s actions had sparked additional concerns about safety related to his family, reinforcing a pattern of controversy surrounding his public profile. The evolving case remains under judicial review, with authorities weighing the evidence and the public interest in how online content is regulated and monitored in the digital era. As proceedings proceed, legal analysts and observers will be watching for how the court addresses the alleged propaganda content, the video incident, and the blogger’s stated intent to cooperate with investigators, all within the framework of existing laws and procedural rules.