REK Founder Shares California Cease-and-Desist After Human–Humanoid Fight

REK’s human-versus-humanoid fight has drawn a regulatory response, according to founder and CEO Cix Liv. He has posted a photograph of a cease-and-desist notice bearing California State Athletic Commission letterhead following the company’s September 18 event in San Francisco, where internet personality Frankie LaPenna faced an EngineAI T800.

Key Takeaways

Show all

• REK’s founder shared a notice addressing an unsanctioned human-versus-humanoid cage fight.
• The photographed letter calls for commission approval and licensing for covered contests involving humans; it does not announce a general ban on robot fighting.
• The bout featured LaPenna and a remotely controlled humanoid, bringing human participation into REK’s robot-combat format.

What the posted letter says

The document is dated September 23, 2026, addressed to REK and Cix Liv, and bears the name and signature of commission executive officer Andy Foster. It identifies the September 18 event as an “UNSANCTIONED HUMAN VERSUS HUMANOID ROBOT CAGE FIGHT.”

Its text directs recipients to stop holding, promoting or advertising boxing or mixed-martial-arts contests or exhibitions involving a human in California without prior commission approval. It also addresses participation and promotion without a license, citing the State Athletic Commission Act.

The photograph is the basis for this report; Humanoids Daily has not independently authenticated the notice with the commission. It does not establish that all REK events have been cancelled or that robot-versus-robot competition is prohibited.

The fight behind the notice

REK promoted the match as its first human-versus-robot fight. LaPenna subsequently shared the full-length video, showing the spectacle that followed REK’s earlier robot-combat events. Reporting on the bout describes the T800 as remotely controlled by a human operator.

We previously covered REK and UFB’s competing US robot-fighting leagues. Adding a human opponent gives that entertainment format a different regulatory question: what approvals are required when a person steps into the cage with the machine? The posted notice brings that question into focus, while the commission’s position beyond the document remains unconfirmed.