A judge dismissed X Corp.’s lawsuit against the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) on March 25, 2024—not “just” recently. U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer applied California’s anti-SLAPP law to strike X’s state-law claims and dismissed its federal claims, without allowing another amended complaint. The decision concerned claims brought by Elon Musk’s company, not a personal lawsuit by Musk, and it did not establish that every CCDH report was factually correct.
What happened in the case?
X Corp. sued CCDH in federal court in California on July 31, 2023. CCDH had published research and commentary about hate speech, anti-LGBTQ content, climate misinformation and content moderation on X after Musk acquired Twitter in October 2022. X alleged that CCDH’s work relied on improperly obtained data and harmed the company’s relationships with advertisers. The court’s March 25, 2024 order dismissed the case as pleaded. The case docket records the filing; Judge Breyer’s order explains the ruling.
Who sued whom?
The plaintiff was X Corp., the corporate successor to Twitter. The defendants included the U.S. and U.K. entities named Center for Countering Digital Hate, the Stichting European Climate Foundation and unnamed parties. Musk was X’s owner and public face, but he was not the named individual plaintiff. Calling this “Musk’s lawsuit” is shorthand, not the case caption.
What did X allege?
X’s theories centered on data access, contracts and alleged business losses—not a conventional defamation claim over particular statements. It alleged that CCDH improperly accessed or scraped X data, violated the platform’s Terms of Service, used data gathered through Brandwatch or related tools, published misleading or methodologically flawed reports, and interfered with advertiser or other contractual relationships. X alleged losses of at least tens of millions of dollars; that figure was the company’s claim, not a damages finding by the court. Reuters’ account of the allegations and dismissal summarizes X’s position.
#1 Best Overall
CCDH said the suit was meant to intimidate or silence a nonprofit whose research criticized X. It asked the court to dismiss the claims and invoke California’s anti-SLAPP statute.
Why did Judge Breyer dismiss X’s claims?
The court’s reasoning combined California’s anti-SLAPP procedure with ordinary rules requiring a complaint to state legally sufficient claims. These are related but distinct parts of the decision: the anti-SLAPP analysis addressed claims tied to protected speech, while the federal pleading analysis considered whether X’s theories were legally adequate.
The anti-SLAPP analysis
SLAPP stands for “strategic lawsuit against public participation.” California’s anti-SLAPP law, Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16, provides an early procedure for challenging claims arising from protected speech or petitioning on matters of public interest. It does not mean every unsuccessful lawsuit is automatically a SLAPP. In this case, the court treated CCDH’s publications about hate speech and moderation on a major social platform as protected activity on public issues, then concluded that X had not shown a sufficient basis for its California-law claims to proceed. The searchable opinion sets out the court’s anti-SLAPP analysis.
The federal claims and the pleading problems
Judge Breyer also dismissed X’s federal claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), including its claim under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), 18 U.S.C. § 1030. The order identified problems with X’s theories about computer access, contractual duties, interference and damages. The court concluded that the complaint did not adequately turn the alleged data use and resulting criticism into viable claims under the legal theories X pleaded.
The court denied X leave to amend. In practical terms, X could not continue this district-court case by simply filing another version of the complaint. The ruling did not, by itself, establish the amount of any attorneys’ fees CCDH might recover; fees require a court order and should not be inferred from dismissal alone.
The judge’s characterization of the suit
Judge Breyer summarized his view of the case with the sentence: “This case is about punishing the Defendants for their speech.” That was the judge’s characterization of the lawsuit’s purpose in deciding the motions. It was not a finding that Musk personally committed a crime, nor a factual certification of every CCDH report.
Rank #4
- New Insights
- New Perspectives
What the ruling did—and did not—decide
- It did: dismiss X’s pleaded claims against CCDH and strike the state-law claims under California’s anti-SLAPP framework, without leave to amend in the district court.
- It did not: conduct a trial or comprehensively fact-check CCDH’s research, determine a universal rate of hate speech on X, or establish that every conclusion in every report was correct.
- It did not: give researchers blanket immunity from claims involving genuinely unlawful access, breach of a valid contract, trade-secret misuse, fraud, defamation or other recognized causes of action. Any such claim would still have to satisfy the applicable legal standards.
The distinction matters: the court ruled that X’s claims could not proceed as pleaded and found them substantially connected to protected speech. It did not hold that a platform can never bring a viable case involving data access or other conduct.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What happened to the other named defendant?
In a separate order, Judge Breyer granted the European Climate Foundation’s motion to dismiss, addressing personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. X was not allowed to proceed against that defendant on the theories it pleaded. The separate order addresses that motion.
Outdated Drivers Are Slowing You Down
One free scan finds every outdated or missing driver and matches the right update for your exact hardware.Free scan · exact hardware matchWindows Errors? Fix Them Before They Spread
Repair common Windows errors and clear accumulated junk for a smoother, more stable PC - no reinstall needed.Free scan · no reinstallBest Value
Was the dismissal appealed?
X filed a Ninth Circuit appeal on April 25, 2024, docketed as No. 24-2643. The available appellate docket entry establishes that the appeal was opened, but does not establish a final appellate disposition. The district-court dismissal therefore should not be described as affirmed, reversed or otherwise resolved on appeal without confirmation from an up-to-date court record.
Why the case matters beyond X and CCDH
The dispute highlighted a tension between a platform’s interest in controlling access to its data and the public interest in independent scrutiny of how a major service handles speech. Terms of service and computer-access laws can matter, but labeling reporting as data misuse does not automatically overcome protections for speech on public issues. Conversely, the anti-SLAPP ruling was tied to the specific claims and record before this court; it is not a general license to access platform data unlawfully.
CCDH and other researchers have argued that the cost and burden of litigation can deter nonprofit, academic and journalistic work even when a case ultimately fails. That is a broader concern about potential chilling effects, not a separate finding by Judge Breyer that all litigation against researchers is retaliatory.
X’s disputes with Media Matters for America and its public conflicts with the Anti-Defamation League are separate matters with different parties, claims and procedural histories. They may provide context for arguments about X and its critics, but they were not decided by the CCDH ruling. The Media Matters complaint concerns a different case.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
