media matters for America

Texas judge decides Texas is a perfectly good venue for X to sue Media Matters

elon musk x corp, media matters for America, Policy, x vs media matters / Mike M. / August 30, 2024

Elon Musk speaks at an event while wearing a cowboy hat, sunglasses, and T-shirt. — Enlarge / Tesla CEO Elon Musk speaks at Tesla’s “Cyber Rodeo” on April 7, 2022, in Austin, Texas.

Getty Images | AFP/Suzanne Cordeiro

A federal judge in Texas yesterday ruled that Elon Musk’s X Corp. can continue its lawsuit against Media Matters for America. US District Judge Reed O’Connor of the Northern District of Texas, who recently refused to recuse himself from the case despite having purchased Tesla stock, denied Media Matters’ motion to dismiss.

X Corp. sued Media Matters after the nonprofit watchdog group published research on ads being placed next to pro-Nazi content on X, formerly Twitter. X’s lawsuit also names reporter Eric Hananoki and Media Matters President Angelo Carusone as defendants.

Because of O’Connor’s ruling, X can move ahead with its claims of tortious interference with contract, business disparagement, and tortious interference with prospective economic advantage. A jury trial is scheduled to begin on April 7, 2025.

“Plaintiff alleges that Defendants knowingly and maliciously fabricated side-by-side images of various advertisers’ posts on Plaintiff’s social media platform X depicted next to neo-Nazi or other extremist content, and portrayed these designed images as if they were what the average user experiences on the X platform,” O’Connor wrote in his ruling on the motion to dismiss. “Plaintiff asserts that Defendants proceeded with this course of action in an effort to publicly portray X as a social media platform dominated by neo-Nazism and anti-Semitism, and thereby alienate major advertisers, publishers, and users away from the X platform, intending to harm it.”

A different federal judge in the District of Columbia recently criticized X’s claims, pointing out that “X did not deny that advertising in fact had appeared next to the extremist posts on the day in question.” But X has a more friendly judge in O’Connor, who has made several rulings against Media Matters. The defendant could also face a tough road on appeal because challenges would go to the conservative-leaning US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit.

Judge: Media Matters “targeted” Texas-based advertisers

Media Matters’ motion to dismiss argues in part that Texas is an improper forum for the dispute because “X is organized under Nevada law and maintains its principal place of business in San Francisco, California, where its own terms of service require users of its platform to litigate any disputes.” (Musk recently said that X will move its headquarters from San Francisco to Austin, Texas.)

O’Connor’s ruling acknowledges that “when a nonresident defendant files a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff as the party seeking to invoke the district court’s jurisdiction.” In this case, O’Connor said that jurisdiction is established if the defendants “targeted the conduct that is the basis for this lawsuit at Texas.”

O’Connor ruled that the court has jurisdiction because Media Matters articles “targeted” Texas-based companies that advertised on X, specifically Oracle and AT&T, even though those companies are not parties to the lawsuit. O’Connor said the Media Matters “articles targeted, among others, Oracle, a Texas-based company that placed ads on Plaintiff’s platform… Plaintiff also alleges that this ‘crusade’ targeted its blue-chip advertisers which included Oracle and AT&T, Texas-based companies.”

O’Connor, a George W. Bush appointee, wrote that a “defendant who targets a Texas company with tortious activity has fair warning that it may be sued there.”

“This targeting of the alleged tortious acts at the headquarters of Texas-based companies is sufficient to establish specific jurisdiction in Texas… each Defendant engaged in the alleged tortious acts which targeted harm in, among other places, Texas,” he wrote.

Judge cites TV appearances

That includes Hananoki, the Media Matters reporter who wrote the articles, and Carusone. Each of those individual defendants “targeted” the conduct at Texas, O’Connor found.

“Plaintiff alleges Carusone participated in the ‘crusade’ with Hananoki and Media Matters when he appeared on television shows a number of times discussing the importance of advertisers to Plaintiff’s business model and advocating that advertisers should cease doing business with Plaintiff if there is a deluge of ‘unmoderated right-wing hatred and misinformation,'” O’Connor wrote.

Ruling that “Media Matters targeted Texas,” O’Connor wrote that the group pursued “a strategy to target Plaintiff’s blue-chip advertisers, including Oracle and AT&T, Texas-based companies; in furtherance of this strategy it published the Hananoki articles, and it published other articles pressuring the blue-chip advertisers, all to pressure blue-chip advertisers to cease doing business with Plaintiff. Finally, the inference from Media Matters’ affidavit is that Media Matters also emailed the Hananoki articles to Texans, and Plaintiff’s lawsuit arises out of this conduct.”

Media Matters also sought dismissal on the basis that X failed to state a claim. But O’Connor said that “the Court must accept all well-pleaded facts in the complaint as true and view them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff,” and he found that X “has provided sufficient allegations to survive dismissal.”

Media Matters declined to comment when contacted by Ars today.

Texas judge decides Texas is a perfectly good venue for X to sue Media Matters Read More »

Judge halts Texas probe into Media Matters’ reporting on X

elon musk, First Amendment, free speech, ken paxton, media matters for America, Policy, texas, Twitter, x twitter / Paul Patrick / April 15, 2024

Enlarge / Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton speaks during the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) meeting on February 23, 2024.

A judge has preliminarily blocked what Media Matters for America (MMFA) described as Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s attempt to “rifle through” confidential documents to prove that MMFA fraudulently manipulated X (formerly Twitter) data to ruin X’s advertising business, as Elon Musk has alleged.

After Musk accused MMFA of publishing reports that Musk claimed were designed to scare advertisers off X, Paxton promptly launched his own investigation into MMFA last November.

Suing MMFA over alleged violations of Texas’ Deceptive Trade Practices Act—which prohibits “disparaging the goods, services, or business of another by false or misleading representation of facts”—Paxton sought a wide range of MMFA documents through a civil investigative demand (CID). Filing a motion to block the CID, MMFA told the court that the CID had violated the media organization’s First Amendment rights, providing evidence that Paxton’s investigation and CID had chilled MMFA speech.

Paxton had requested Media Matters’ financial records—including “direct and indirect sources of funding for all Media Matters operations involving X research or publications”—as well as “internal and external communications” on “Musk’s purchase of X” and X’s current CEO Linda Yaccarino. He also asked for all of Media Matters’ communications with X representatives and X advertisers.

But perhaps most invasive, Paxton wanted to see all the communications about Media Matters’ X reporting that triggered the lawsuits, which, as US District Judge Amit Mehta wrote in an opinion published Friday, was a compelled disclosure that “poses a serious threat to the vitality of the newsgathering process.”

Mehta was concerned that MMFA showed that “Media Matters’ editorial leaders have pared back reporting and publishing, particularly on any topics that could be perceived as relating to the Paxton investigation”—including two follow-ups on its X reporting. Because of Paxton’s alleged First Amendment retaliation, MMFA said it did not publish “two pieces concerning X’s placement of advertising alongside antisemitic, pro-Nazi accounts”—”not out of legitimate concerns about fairness or accuracy,” but “out of fear of harassment, threats, and retaliation.”

According to Mehta’s order, Paxton did not contest that Texas’ lawsuit had chilled MMFA’s speech. Further, Paxton had given at least one podcast interview where he called upon other state attorneys general to join him in investigating MMFA.

Because Paxton “projected himself across state lines and asserted a pseudo-national executive authority,” Mehta wrote and repeatedly described MMFA as a “radical anti-free speech” or “radical left-wing organization,” the court had seen sufficient “evidence of retaliatory intent.”

“Notably,” Mehta wrote, Paxton remained “silent” and never “submitted a sworn declaration that explains his reasons for opening the investigation.”

In his press release, Paxton justified the investigation by saying, “We are examining the issue closely to ensure that the public has not been deceived by the schemes of radical left-wing organizations who would like nothing more than to limit freedom by reducing participation in the public square.”

Ultimately, Mehta granted MMFA’s request for a preliminary injunction to block Paxton’s CID because the judge found that the investigation and the CID have caused MMFA “to self-censor when making research and publication decisions, adversely affected the relationships between editors and reporters, and restricted communications with sources and journalists.”

“Only injunctive relief will ‘prevent the [ongoing] deprivation of free speech rights,'” Mehta’s opinion said, deeming MMFA’s reporting as “core First Amendment activities.”

Mehta’s order also banned Paxton from taking any steps to further his investigation until the lawsuit is decided.

In a statement Friday, MMFA President and CEO Angelo Carusone celebrated the win as not just against Paxton but also against Musk.

“Elon Musk encouraged Republican state attorneys general to use their power to harass their critics and stifle reporting about X,” Carusone said. “Ken Paxton was one of those AGs that took up the call and he was defeated. Today’s decision is a victory for free speech.”

Paxton has not yet responded to the preliminary injunction and his office did not respond to Ars’ request to comment..

Media Matters’ lawyer, Aria C. Branch, a partner at Elias Law Group, told Ars that “while Attorney General Paxton’s office has not yet responded to Friday’s ruling, the preliminary injunction should certainly put an end to these kind of lawless, politically motivated attempts to muzzle the press.”

Judge halts Texas probe into Media Matters’ reporting on X Read More »

X filing “thermonuclear lawsuit” in Texas should be “fatal,” Media Matters says

elon musk, First Amendment, free speech, hate speech, media matters for America, online hate speech, Policy, texas, Twitter, X / Paul Patrick / April 2, 2024

Ever since Elon Musk’s X Corp sued Media Matters for America (MMFA) over a pair of reports that X (formerly Twitter) claims caused an advertiser exodus in 2023, one big question has remained for onlookers: Why is this fight happening in Texas?

In a motion to dismiss filed in Texas’ northern district last month, MMFA argued that X’s lawsuit should be dismissed not just because of a “fatal jurisdictional defect,” but “dismissal is also required for lack of venue.”

Notably, MMFA is based in Washington, DC, while “X is organized under Nevada law and maintains its principal place of business in San Francisco, California, where its own terms of service require users of its platform to litigate any disputes.”

“Texas is not a fair or reasonable forum for this lawsuit,” MMFA argued, suggesting that “the case must be dismissed or transferred” because “neither the parties nor the cause of action has any connection to Texas.”

Last Friday, X responded to the motion to dismiss, claiming that the lawsuit—which Musk has described as “thermonuclear”—was appropriately filed in Texas because MMFA “intentionally” targeted readers and at least two X advertisers located in Texas, Oracle and AT&T. According to X, because MMFA “identified Oracle, a Texas-based corporation, by name in its coverage,” MMFA “cannot claim surprise at being held to answer for its conduct in Texas.” X also claimed that Texas has jurisdiction because Musk resides in Texas and “makes numerous critical business decisions about X while in Texas.”

This so-called targeting of Texans caused a “substantial part” of alleged financial harms that X attributes to MMFA’s reporting, X alleged.

According to X, MMFA specifically targeted X in Texas by sending newsletters sharing its reports with “hundreds or thousands” of Texas readers and by allegedly soliciting donations from Texans to support MMFA’s reporting.

But MMFA pushed back, saying that “Texas subscribers comprise a disproportionately small percentage of Media Matters’ newsletter recipients” and that MMFA did “not solicit Texas donors to fund Media Matters’s journalism concerning X.” Because of this, X’s “efforts to concoct claim-related Texas contacts amount to a series of shots in the dark, uninformed guesses, and irrelevant tangents,” MMFA argued.

On top of that, MMFA argued that X could not attribute any financial harms allegedly caused by MMFA’s reports to either of the two Texas-based advertisers that X named in its court filings. Oracle, MMFA said, “by X’s own admission,… did not withdraw its ads” from X, and AT&T was not named in MMFA’s reporting, and thus, “any investigation AT&T did into its ad placement on X was of its own volition and is not plausibly connected to Media Matters.” MMFA has argued that advertisers, particularly sophisticated Fortune 500 companies, made their own decisions to stop advertising on X, perhaps due to widely reported increases in hate speech on X or even Musk’s own seemingly antisemitic posting.

Ars could not immediately reach X, Oracle, or AT&T for comment.

X’s suit allegedly designed to break MMFA

MMFA President Angelo Carusone, who is a defendant in X’s lawsuit, told Ars that X’s recent filing has continued to “expose” the lawsuit as a “meritless and vexatious effort to inflict maximum damage on critical research and reporting about the platform.”

“It’s solely designed to basically break us or stop us from doing the work that we were doing originally,” Carusone said, confirming that the lawsuit has negatively impacted MMFA’s hate speech research on X.

MMFA argued that Musk could have sued in other jurisdictions, such as Maryland, DC, or California, and MMFA would not have disputed the venue, but Carusone suggested that Musk sued in Texas in hopes that it would be “a more friendly jurisdiction.”

X filing “thermonuclear lawsuit” in Texas should be “fatal,” Media Matters says Read More »