Judge throws out X lawsuit vs. hate speech watchdog
Musk’s complaint that nonprofit’s report led to advertiser exodus criticized as a punitive suit
A federal judge on Monday threw out a lawsuit by Elon Musk’s X that had targeted a watchdog group for its critical reports about hate speech on the social media platform.
In a blistering 52-page order, the judge blasted X’s case as plainly punitive rather than about protecting the platform’s security and legal rights.
“Sometimes it is unclear what is driving a litigation,” wrote District Judge Charles Breyer, of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, in the order’s opening lines. “Other times, a complaint is so unabashedly and vociferously about one thing that there can be no mistaking that purpose.”
“This case represents the latter circumstance,” Breyer continued. “This case is about punishing the defendants for their speech.”
X had alleged that the nonprofit “scraped” its site for data, which is against its terms of service. But the judge found that X failed to “allege losses based on technological harms” — that is, the company didn’t show how the scraping led to financial losses for X.
X had sought millions of dollars in damages, arguing that the nonprofit’s reports led to the exodus of advertisers and the loss of ad revenue.
But Breyer agreed with the Center for Countering Digital Hate’s argument saying X cannot seek damages for the independent acts of third parties based on the nonprofit’s reports, or its “speech.”
The center has offices in the U.S. and United Kingdom. It regularly publishes reports on hate speech, extremism or harmful behavior on social media platforms like X, TikTok or Facebook. The organization has published several reports critical of Musk’s leadership, detailing a rise in anti-LGBTQ hate speech as well as climate misinformation since his purchase.
In a statement posted to X, the social media platform said it “disagrees with the court’s decision and plans to appeal.”
Imran Ahmed, the center’s founder and CEO, said the lawsuit amounted to a “hypocritical campaign of harassment” by a billionaire who talks about protecting free speech but who then uses his wealth to try to silence his critics. He said the lawsuit shows the need for a federal law requiring tech companies to release more information about their operations, so that the public can understand how these powerful platforms are shaping society.
“We hope this landmark ruling will embolden public-interest researchers everywhere to continue, and even intensify, their vital work of holding social media companies accountable for the hate and disinformation they host and the harm they cause,” said Ahmed.
Roberta Kaplan, the center’s attorney, said the dismissal of X’s suit shows “even the wealthiest man cannot bend the rule of law to his will.”