X (formerly Twitter) to sue gov’t allied NGO

Platform X, once known as Twitter, is suing the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), alleging terms of service violations. Specifically X alleges unauthorized access to and misuse of its user data, and attempts by CCDH “to coerce … deplatforming.”

X takes an initiative

X filed their case, X Corp v. CCDH, in the Northern District of California.X announced their lawsuit yesterday on the company blog, in a post titled “Protecting the public’s right to free expression.” After asserting that “free expression and platform safety are not at odds,” the company set forth its grievance against CCDH.

Bloomberg posted an article asserting that Twitter (now X) had more “hate speech” after Elon Musk bought the company. They cited CCDH “research” saying advertisers have a problem with their ads showing up next to “harmful” content. Bloomberg acknowledges that advertisers may opt to keep their ads away from different types of content. That didn’t seem to be enough for CCDH.

But Brandwatch, the day after the article appeared, accused Bloomberg of using “incomplete and outdated data” in their analysis. Brandwatch spoke of “metrics used out of context” and “unsubstantiated assertions” about the platform.

X responded to the article with a detailed long-form rebuttal of the claims in the Bloomberg article.

Linda Yaccarino, the new CEO of X, also responded on her own account.

Those two long-form tweets speak volumes about Twitter’s trust-and-safety policies. This might lead some to suggest that Twitter, or X, is just as hostile to freedom of speech as Twitter was when Parag Agrawal ran it. But CCDH insisted that “hate speech” had gotten worse – and cited Brandwatch to make their case. That prompted Brandwatch to rebut CCDH’s claims and attack the quality of the data involved.

A more serious offense

But in the company blog, X alleged a worse offense: that CCDH had “scraped” the platform. “Scraping” refers to data extraction in volume from a platform or any company with a large public-contact presence. Some advocates of scraping are fairly brazen in their advocacy and “how-to” information; here is an example. Scraping is also a violation of X’s Terms of Service. Even worse, Brandwatch accused CCDH of gaining unauthorized access to Brandwatch’s own data for their flawed analysis.

Moreover, much of the Bloomberg article consists of a litany of complaints from leftist groups who are not accustomed to seeing on the platform any content with which they disagree. They might fondly remember Twitter’s days as a willing State actor.

CCDH are the original authors of the “Disinformation Dozen” report that now figures in two major lawsuits against the government.

Specifics of the complaint

The twenty-three-page complaint primarily alleges that CCDH knowingly did things that would cause X financial harm.

In fact the complaint alleges that CCDH scraped the platform repeatedly over the last two years. It lists these causes of action:

1. Breach of contract against the U.S. arm of CCDH,
2. Viiolation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 USC Section 1030),
3. Intentional interference with contractual relations, and
4. Inducing of breach of contract.

X asserts the last three counts not only against CCDH but also against fifty unnamed “John/Jane Doe” style defendants, whose names the company is still trying to learn. These “Does 1-50” are “commercial competitors” and “governmental entities and their affiliates.” In this connection the complaint mentions an unnamed U.S. Senator who has called CCDH a “dark money group.” That can only be Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), who so alleged in an article at The Drilldown more than two years ago.

They are asking for compensatory damages and a permanent injunction against the use of X or Brandwatch data. Finally, the company has demanded a jury trial.