Advertisement
Monday’s decision represents a significant victory for the CCDH and underscores the importance of protecting expression on matters of public concern.
X filed a lawsuit in July accusing CCDH of using “intimidation tactics” to drive advertisers off the platform. The company also admits that CCDH entered incorrect data and selected the wording describing X as written with negative content. But Judge Charles Breyer of the Northern District of California found that the key to the case was not resolving the legal complaint but punishing CCDH for its statements.
In his decision, Justice Breyer cited California’s anti-SLAPP law, which is designed to protect speech on matters of public concern and the obstruction of civil partnership transactions. He noted that X’s lawsuit appears to be an attempt to silence criticism and prevent others from acting as censors on social media platforms. The judge said the large damages sought by X could harm smaller nonprofits like CCDH.
CCDH, known for monitoring hate speech and misinformation online, welcomed the court’s decision, noting its importance in protecting the company’s right to criticize its relationship. CCDH attorney Roberta Kaplan, who recently won a defamation lawsuit against former President Donald Trump, said she believes the decision will be appealed in Silicon Valley and beyond.
The company faced a legal battle elsewhere when X defied the court’s decision and announced plans to appeal. X sued Israeli online data storage company Bright Data for alleged unauthorized data collection and Media Matters for America over an investigative report that raised concerns about X publishing pro-Nazi content.
The announcement of X’s lawsuit against CCDH is a turning point in the ongoing debate about freedom of expression and accountability in the digital sphere. As tech companies face increasing scrutiny of their content practices, the court’s decision reiterates the importance of protecting public discourse, power, and scrutinizing the actions of powerful companies.