Judge dumps X data-scraping suit against hate speech monitor

SAN FRANCISCO (CN) — A federal judge on Monday morning dismissed a lawsuit brought by the social media giant formerly known as Twitter against a nonprofit group that monitors online hate speech, finding the nonprofit’s activity is protected by the First Amendment.

X originally sued the Center for Countering Digital Hate in July 2023, accusing the group of trying to draw advertisers away from X by showcasing harmful content hosted on the platform. 

In its complaint, X said the D.C.-based CCDH violated X’s terms of service when it used a data-scraping tool to cull tweets with harmful content and then published reports about them. X called it a “scare campaign" and claimed that was an activist agency masquerading as a research agency. 

X argued CCDH was funded and supported by unknown individuals and foreign governments, and that its reports caused harm by influencing advertisers not to do business on X, costing the social media giant millions of dollars in ad revenue.

CCDH said the suit was baseless and was an attempt by X and its owner, billionaire Elon Musk, to silence free speech.

U.S. Senior District Judge Charles Breyer slammed X in his 52-page opinion.

“Sometimes it is unclear what is driving a litigation, and only by reading between the lines of a complaint can one attempt to surmise a plaintiff’s true purpose. 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. This case is about punishing the defendants for their speech,” Breyer wrote.

At a motion to dismiss hearing in February, X’s lawyer argued that the case was about protecting users’ privacy and had nothing to do with restricting speech — a claim that Breyer seemed skeptical of at the time. X asked to refile the suit against CCDH, but Breyer denied the request.

“It is also just not true that the complaint is only about data collection," Breyer wrote. "It is impossible to read the complaint and not conclude that X Corp. is far more concerned about CCDH's speech than it is its data collection methods.”

Breyer noted X’s decision not to file defamation claims against CCDH further proved that the case was more about free speech than data collection.

“It is apparent to the court that X Corp. wishes to have it both ways — to be spared the burdens of pleading a defamation claim, while bemoaning the harm to its reputation, and seeking punishing damages based on reputational harm,” Breyer wrote.

Breyer found CCDH had engaged in news gathering when it published reports on the content hosted by X, and that anti-SLAPP statutes protected CCDH. California’s anti-SLAPP laws protect people and groups from frivolous lawsuits aimed at suppressing free speech and the California Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled in the past that anti-SLAPP statutes should be “broadly construed," Breyer wrote.

“CCDH’s writing of reports and articles about X Corp. — writing the complaint references over and over — unquestionably constitutes an act ‘in furtherance of’ CCDH’s free speech rights,” Breyer wrote. “X Corp.’s argument that ‘parties to a contract cannot disregard the terms of their agreements, or governing statutory law, simply by invoking the mere pursuit of contemplated, alleged protected speech,’ therefore misses the mark.”

In a blog post on the CCDH website, CEO and founder Imran Ahmed celebrated the victory.

“Throughout Elon Musk’s loud, hypocritical campaign of harassment, abuse, and lawfare designed to avoid taking responsibility for his own decisions, CCDH has remained quietly confident in the quality and integrity of our research and advocacy. Our aim has always been to alert the world to corporate failures that undermine human rights and civil liberties. The courts today have affirmed our fundamental right to research, to speak, to advocate, and to hold accountable social media companies for decisions they make behind closed doors that affect our kids, our democracy, and our fundamental human rights and civil liberties.”

Ahmed called for federal transparency laws to protect the public’s right to know more about social media platforms, which increasingly shape modern discourse and debate.

“It is archly ironic that in his zeal to shut down criticism, Elon Musk made the most eloquent case ever for statutory transparency rules,” Ahmed wrote. “We will continue to use all legal tools to protect independent research against malicious, retaliatory lawsuits from powerful vested interests.”

Because CCDH won the case under California's anti-SLAPP laws, Musk will have to pay the group's legal fees for the case. The total of the fees is not known at this point. 

X’s press office, when reached for comment, replied immediately with the message “Busy now. Please check back later.”

Subscribe to Closing Arguments

Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.

Email *

Submit