CNN –
Some legal experts are reviewing Elon Musk’s lawsuit against watchdog group Media Matters, saying Monday’s
The lawsuit, filed Monday, accuses Media Matters of releasing a report that increased the likelihood of ads appearing next to extremist content on the site. The company claims the group’s testing methodology is not representative of how real users experience the site a judge who forces Media Matters to withdraw the analysis.
The case appears to be a “misguided” attempt to soften criticism in a way that is “completely contrary to the basic principles of the First Amendment,” Ted Boutrous, a First Amendment lawyer with years of experience dealing with the tech industry, told CNN. Boutrous added that the case for
According to Steve Vladeck, a law professor at the University of Texas and CNN contributor, the lawsuit also has “serious flaws” in admitting that ads did indeed appear alongside extremist content, regardless of how Media Matters reached that conclusion.
“The complaint admits that what Media Matters made such a fuss about actually happened,” Vladeck said. “Most companies don’t want their ads to appear next to neo-Nazi content even once, and they don’t care about the exact percentage of users who encounter such placement next to each other.”
Contrary to the complaint, Media Matters “never claimed that what it found was typical of other users’ experiences,” Vladeck added.
But even as some analysts deride the lawsuit as weak on the merits, they don’t rule out the possibility that it could move forward, thanks to what appears to be a conscious decision by
On Monday, X’s case was assigned to District Judge Mark Pittman, a former judge appointed by Donald Trump the center of some of the country’s biggest legal battles, including over gun rights and President Joe Biden’s stalled student loan forgiveness plan.
The big question, legal experts say, is whether Musk’s choice of venue – the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas – can help him overcome some of the lawsuit’s substantive deficiencies.
In accusing Media Matters of distorting the truth, According to Musk, Media Matters set up a test account for extremist material and then refreshed the feed until X’s ad system showed an ad for major brands.
X does not appear to dispute the fact that X monetized extremist content or that the brands’ ads were placed alongside it.
“X admits that the ads were placed alongside hateful content, but argues that this was ‘rare,'” he said Joan Donovan, Professor of Journalism and Emerging Media Studies at Boston University. “This is the same strategy used by advertisers that led YouTube to unmask political content in 2017.”
Akiva Cohen, a litigator at Kamerman, Uncyk, Soniker & Klein in New York, pointed out that Musk has relied on large law firms in the past in his other cases – such as his lawsuit with Twitter over the original acquisition and against former Twitter employee – in this situation he relies on a much smaller company.
“All those big companies that Elon usually uses? They probably said, “Shit no, are you crazy?” “That’s a baaaaad idea,” Cohen said in a post on X-Alternative BlueSky.
“He chose politically connected Texas lawyers, which reflects the extent to which people think Texas courts are political, not legal, players,” Cohen added. “All three attorneys in this signature block have a background in the Texas AG’s office or the Attorney General’s office.”
Immediately after Musk’s lawsuit on Monday, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced a fraud investigation into the Media Matters case. And Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey posted on X that his office was doing the same, news for Musk replied: “Great!”
Musk’s court decision highlights an attempt to “strengthen a weak case on the merits by a bench that is more sympathetic to even weak claims,” Vladeck said. “It’s one of those lawsuits that is filed more for symbolism than substance.”
In a statement Monday evening, Media Matters President Angelo Carusone vowed to defend the group against the lawsuit.
“This is a frivolous lawsuit designed to silence X’s critics,” Carusone said. “Media Matters stands behind its reporting and looks forward to winning in court.”
Some legal experts suggested that Media Matters’ first course of action could be to move the case to Texas federal court. X is headquartered in California, while Media Matters is based in Washington, DC. The Texas court reflects the “lack of any logical connection to the dispute,” Vladeck said.
If the case is not moved out of Texas, the court’s apparently deliberate choice in favor of these so-called “anti-SLAPP” laws could not apply to the federal appeals court that has jurisdiction over Texas, said Ken White, a First Amendment lawyer based in Los Angeles.
“X filed this in federal court in Texas to avoid the application of an anti-SLAPP law,” White said on BlueSky, adding: “X’s goal is to harass and abuse and to maximize the costs of litigation, and anti-SLAPP laws stand in the way of this goal.”
Even if Musk could somehow convince a court to view Media Matters’ methodology skeptically, that doesn’t prove that Media Matters’ report was directly responsible for the advertisers’ revolt, said Nora Benavidez, senior attorney at the civil rights group Free Press. So far, none of the brands that have stopped advertising on X have directly cited the Media Matters analysis as a reason for their decision.
“Musk and his lawyers are trying to isolate the Media Matters investigation as the sole reason major advertisers joined X’s exodus. But these big brands are not naive,” Benavidez told CNN. “Not only did they see their ads placed next to abhorrent content, but they also witnessed Musk’s own abhorrent online behavior, including amplifying anti-Semitic posts from other bigots and bullies on the platform.”
Brands “have every right to exercise their own right to free speech when deciding how to spend their advertising dollars,” she added.
—CNN’s Oliver Darcy and Jon Passantino contributed to this report