In US courts, the social network claimed that the data was obtained illegally. However, to Justice, it was “clear” that Musk was trying to “punish” the organization for publishing the report and “dissuade others” from adopting the same critical stance against the platform.
“Sometimes it is not clear what motivates litigation, and only by reading between the lines of the complaint can one attempt to guess the plaintiff's true purpose,” Justice Charles Breyer wrote in his ruling. UOL. “Other times, the complaint is so brazen and violent about something that it cannot be overlooked. This case represents the latter circumstance. This case is about punishing the defendants for their speech,” the judge said.
It is not true that the complaint is only related to data collection. It is impossible to read the complaint and not conclude that X Corp. It is more concerned with the rhetoric of the Advisory Council on Human Rights than with data collection methods.
Charles Breyer, the judge in the decision against the company
Entities celebrate
There is still an appeal, but the decision represents a precedent celebrated by dozens of entities in the United States of America that filed a lawsuit against the businessman, in an attempt by the platform to silence any doubt about its actions.
Once he took over the company and bought what was known as Twitter, Musk He threatened to open defamation suits and file a lawsuit against Media Matterswhich denounced the platform's neo-Nazi and anti-Semitic content.
Charlotte Whitmore is a contributor at Mediarunsearch.co.uk, covering a broad range of topics including news, politics, business, technology, sport, entertainment, and lifestyle. She focuses on delivering clear, balanced reporting and practical information that helps readers stay informed about current events and emerging developments. Her work highlights stories that matter to everyday audiences, with an emphasis on accuracy, relevance, and accessible journalism that keeps readers connected to the issues shaping the UK and beyond.