Lost money when Polymarket's Zelenskyy suit markets resolved "No"? Burwick Law is reviewing potential claims. Contact digitalassets@burwick.law.

Polymarket traders who held "Yes" shares in any of the Zelenskyy suit markets, or who sold at a loss while an outcome was disputed, can contact digitalassets@burwick.law.

NEW YORK, September 10, 2026. Burwick Law is investigating potential claims on behalf of Polymarket traders who lost money when Polymarket's markets on whether Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy (often spelled Zelensky) would wear a suit resolved "No."

In 2025, Polymarket ran markets asking whether Zelenskyy would be photographed or videotaped wearing a suit before a given date, with "a consensus of credible reporting" as the resolution source. When he appeared at the NATO summit in The Hague in a black jacket and matching trousers, major news organizations described the outfit as a suit, and the market moved toward "Yes." The outcome was then disputed through UMA, the token-holder voting system Polymarket uses for contested markets. Polymarket posted a clarification stating that a consensus of credible reporting had not confirmed a suit, and UMA token holders voted "No." "Yes" shares paid nothing. That market drew more than $200 million in reported trading volume, and an earlier Zelenskyy suit market had resolved "No" as well.

If you lost money on any of these markets, here is why it is worth a conversation now. In July 2026, Burwick Law filed a lawsuit against Polymarket in the Supreme Court of the State of New York on behalf of traders who allege they were denied payouts in the Strategy Bitcoin market after Polymarket posted new clarifying language and the market resolved "No" through a UMA vote. The firm has since filed additional lawsuits over other disputed markets. Burwick Law believes these lawsuits are among the first to test whether a prediction market can be held to its own published rules. The pattern alleged in them is the one Zelenskyy suit traders described at the time: rules that pointed one way, a clarification posted after the event, and an outcome decided by token-holder vote. Reporting by Bloomberg and The Wall Street Journal in 2026 has also examined how a small number of large wallets have decided disputed UMA votes and how often UMA voters hold positions in the markets they judge.

Legal claims are subject to time limits. Some potential claims arising from 2025 resolutions may still be timely, but that window does not stay open indefinitely, and records get harder to find with each passing month. Traders who believe they were treated unfairly should not wait.

The firm would like to hear from anyone who held "Yes" shares in a Zelenskyy suit market when it resolved "No," or who sold "Yes" shares at a loss while an outcome was being disputed. Position size does not matter, and it does not matter which of the Zelenskyy suit markets you traded.

Traders should preserve screenshots of their positions and the market page (including the rules and any clarifications), transaction records, wallet addresses, purchase and sale dates and prices, and any emails or support tickets with Polymarket.

Polymarket traders who lost money in a Zelenskyy suit market can contact digitalassets@burwick.law. Please include the side you held, the approximate number of shares, and your purchase and sale dates.

Attorney Advertising. This article is based on the markets' published rules and public reporting. Allegations in any complaint are allegations only, and no court has determined that Polymarket, UMA, or any other party acted unlawfully in connection with these markets. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contacting the firm does not create an attorney-client relationship unless and until an engagement agreement is signed.