A federal judge in Texas has ruled against Media Matters for America’s request to dismiss a lawsuit brought by the social media platform X, formerly known as Twitter. The lawsuit centers on allegations that Media Matters published misleading reports showing that X placed advertisements alongside anti-Semitic and racist content. With the judge’s decision, the lawsuit will continue to proceed through the courts.
Media Matters sought to have the lawsuit dismissed on several grounds, including a lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue, and failure to state a claim. However, Judge Reed O’Connor of the Northern District of Texas rejected these arguments, determining that the case could move forward. The judge’s ruling eliminates the possibility of an early dismissal based on the technical arguments presented by Media Matters.
Federal Judge Rules Against Media Matters in X Lawsuit Over Misleading Ad Placement Reports
X’s lawsuit accuses Media Matters of intentionally creating a false narrative by showcasing images that suggested Neo-Nazi and white-nationalist content was being placed next to ads on X’s platform. While the images used in the reports were not fabricated, X argues that Media Matters deliberately manipulated the ad placement process, leading to significant harm to X’s reputation and causing advertisers to leave the platform.
Elon Musk, who owns X, has several business interests in Texas, although these companies are not directly involved in the lawsuit. Recently, X closed its San Francisco offices and announced plans to move its headquarters to Austin, Texas. This move follows a trend among Musk’s other companies, such as Tesla and SpaceX, which have also relocated their headquarters to Texas in recent years.
Judge O’Connor addressed the issue of personal jurisdiction by noting that two of the advertisers mentioned in Media Matters’ reports, AT&T and Oracle, are based in Texas. He referenced the 2002 Internet defamation case Revell v. Lidov to justify the decision, stating that when legal disputes involve entities with a significant presence in Texas, it is reasonable for the case to be resolved within the state. This ruling strengthens the case for the lawsuit to be heard in Texas.
