REK says California sent a cease-and-desist over its human-robot fight

Why it matters

The dispute tests whether California's combat-sports rules cover a human fighting a remotely operated robot, putting the regulatory treatment of teleoperated humanoids directly in the path of REK's live-event business.

Cix Liv (@cixliv), founder of San Francisco robot-fighting promoter REK, says California sent the company a cease-and-desist notice over its September 18th human-versus-humanoid exhibition. Liv posted the claim on September 30th, calling the event an "unsanctioned human versus humanoid robot cage fight." The notice and its legal basis are not established by the post itself; the state action remains Liv's account of the dispute.

The exhibition put online creator Frankie LaPenna in a cage against an EngineAI T800 humanoid at a REK event in San Francisco. Footage showed the robot kicking LaPenna across the enclosure. REK promoted the bout as a human-versus-robot fight, but the robot was remotely operated by a human using VR equipment; onboard systems assisted with balance and posture, according to reporting on the event. The distinction is central to the regulatory question: a humanoid body was in the cage, while a person controlled it from outside.

In replies to his post, Liv argued that California's combat-sports law does not cover the matchup because the law defines a contest as a fight "between two or more persons." That phrase appears in Business and Professions Code section 18625, which describes full-contact contests intended or likely to cause physical harm. Liv says the statute's wording leaves the event outside the definition and that regulators would need a change in law to reach it.

The text raises a narrower question than whether a robot counts as a person. In REK's setup, a human operator directs the machine's movements, while the human in the cage faces the robot itself. Section 18625 does not spell out how that remote-control arrangement should be treated. Liv's reading is an argument about the law, not a court ruling or an established interpretation by California regulators. Whether the state is treating the operator, the physical machine, or the event's format as decisive will shape how the dispute develops.

Liv has built around virtual reality and entertainment before. His earlier ventures include LIV, mixed-reality software for VR creators, and YUR, a VR fitness tracker, according to his Wellfound profile. REK applies that background to live events in which pilots control humanoid robots, turning remote operation into a spectator format. Liv has described the wider thesis as making humanoid robots familiar to mainstream audiences through entertainment; the human-versus-robot bout puts that proposition into a more literal, and legally consequential, form.

The exhibition followed REK's robot-versus-robot events and shifted the spectacle from machine-on-machine competition to a human sharing the cage with a remotely controlled robot. That format gives REK a clear entertainment hook while making the safety and oversight questions harder to separate from the product. A human operator may control the robot, but the person on the receiving end still encounters the machine's physical force.

For REK, the immediate stakes extend beyond whether one event falls under California's combat-sports rules. A cease-and-desist, if enforced, could constrain the live format that draws attention to the company's VR control system and humanoid hardware. For regulators, the dispute tests how an existing rule written around fights between people applies when one contestant is a machine controlled by another person. Liv's post frames the statute as a gap regulators must close; the language alone does not decide how California will apply it to this event.