The conservative federal judge rejected the progressive organisation Media Matters for America’s attempt to convince him that Elon Musk and the company should drop their self-described “thermonuclear” lawsuit. This decision moves the business disparagement and tortious interference case one step closer to trial in April of next year.
The lawsuit claimed that Media Matters “knowingly and maliciously manufactured side-by-side images depicting advertisers’ posts on X Corp.’s social media platform beside Neo-Nazi and white-nationalist fringe content and then portrayed these manufactured images as if they were what typical X users experience on the platform.” It resembled a more recent X case filed in Texas against the Global Alliance for Responsible Media and another Musk suit against the Centre for Countering Digital Hate that the brother of retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer threw out in March, prompting an appeal.
With Musk’s forced acquisition, X accused the social networking app of being the target of a “blatant smear campaign” that “falsely portrayed” it as a sanctuary for hate and those looking to “harm” it financially. X also brought accusations of contract interference, commercial disparagement, and interference with future economic advantage.
Given that X is in California and the allegedly offensive statements were written in Maryland and “published” in Washington, D.C., Media Matters had attempted to challenge venue and jurisdiction by claiming that X must have been judge-shopping in Texas. However, O’Connor on Thursday rejected those arguments and found that X had not failed to state a claim.
“Plaintiff has provided sufficient allegations to survive dismissal. Plaintiff has factually alleged: the existence of contracts subject to interference; intentional acts of interference; and proximate causation,” the judge wrote of the tortious interference with contract claim. “It cannot reasonably be disputed that Plaintiff has named parties who contracted for paid ads on X. Media Matters’ reporting has acknowledged as much.”
“Because the Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants, the venue is proper, and Plaintiff has properly pled its claims, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is DENIED,” O’Connor concluded later.
