The company that controls Twitter, now known as X, is suing an anti-hate group whose study criticized the network.
X Corp has accused the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), which has offices in the United States and the United Kingdom, of engaging in “unlawful acts” in order to “improperly gain access” to its data.
In response, CCDH accused Elon Musk, the owner of X Corp, of attempting to suppress anyone who criticized him.
Mr Musk has already declared himself a “free speech absolutist.”
CCDH is a non-profit organization that does research and advocates against internet hatred. Its reports have been widely publicized, including by the BBC. Damian Collins, a Conservative MP, is on its UK board.
Imran Ahmed, the chief executive of CCDH, said in a statement: “Elon Musk’s latest legal threat is straight out of the authoritarian playbook – he is now showing he will stop at nothing to silence anyone who criticises him.”
According to Mr Ahmed, CCDH research showed that hate and disinformation were “spreading like wildfire on the platform under Musk’s ownership.”
He accused the X Corp CEO of wanting to “shoot the messenger.”
The Tlegal case was launched on Monday, immediately after a heated exchange of legal letters – the first, threatening legal action, from X Corp lawyer Alex Spiro was followed by a straightforward response from CCDH’s US attorney Roberta Kaplan.
While Mr Spiro’s letter focused on claimed mistakes in CCDH research, which the organization rejected, a case filed on Monday in the US District Court for the Northern District of California by a different legal firm made a number of fresh charges.
It seeks unspecified monetary damages from the non-profit organization and argues that the centre’s critical studies cost X Corp “at least tens of millions of dollars” in lost advertising income.
It also proposes to amend the case to name CCDH’s backers – who it claims may include “foreign governments with ties to legacy media companies” – when their identities are discovered.
CCDH has produced a number of reports critical of Twitter. For example, a report, heavily criticised in the legal letter from Mr Spiro, suggested that Twitter “fails to act on 99%” of hateful messages from accounts with Twitter Blue subscriptions.
The complaint criticises CCDH’s research and its methodology. It alleges that the organisation “intentionally and unlawfully” scraped data from X in violation of its terms of service, in order to produce its research.
It also claims that the CCDH gained “unauthorised” access to X’s data through a software tool called Brandwatch which helps customers monitor conversations about brands on social media.
The lawsuit alleges that an unnamed third party improperly shared its Brandwatch login details with the CCDH allowing them to gain unauthorized access to data.
The BBC has approached Brandwatch for comment.
It is also alleged that the CCDH’s goal was to censor contrary viewpoints with which it disagreed, on topics such as Covid-19 vaccines, reproductive healthcare and climate change.
As a result of CCDH reports “a number of companies who advertised on X on an ongoing basis immediately paused spending for advertising on X”, the case claims.
