Read on Twitter
🚨🧵 BREAKDOWN OF X CORP. V. MEDIA MATTERS:
Plaintiff: X Corp., a Nevada corporation operating the X social media platform (formerly Twitter).
Defendant: Media Matters for America, a DC-based media watchdog.
Additional Defendant: Eric Hananoki, a writer for Media Matters, domiciled in Maryland.
Plaintiff: X Corp., a Nevada corporation operating the X social media platform (formerly Twitter).
Defendant: Media Matters for America, a DC-based media watchdog.
Additional Defendant: Eric Hananoki, a writer for Media Matters, domiciled in Maryland.
🚨 BREAKDOWN OF X CORP. V. MEDIA MATTERS:
- Allegations Against Media Matters -
1. Misrepresentation of X Corp. Platform: Media Matters accused of maliciously portraying X Corp.’s platform as dominated by extreme content.
2. Manipulated Images: Allegedly manufactured images showing advertisers’ posts next to extremist content to mislead viewers.
3. Intention to Damage: Aimed to alienate advertisers from X Corp. and harm its business.
4. Selective Following and Manipulation: Media Matters accused of manipulating its X account to create misleading ad/content pairings.
5. Excessive Scrolling and Refreshing: Allegedly engaged in unnatural user behavior to generate desired ad/content pairings.
6. Omission in Reporting: Failed to disclose the manipulated and rare nature of the content pairings.
7. Impact on Advertisers: Many advertisers, misled by the report, withdrew their ads from X.
8. Privacy Settings Manipulation: Used privacy settings to hide its methodology from the public.
- Allegations Against Media Matters -
1. Misrepresentation of X Corp. Platform: Media Matters accused of maliciously portraying X Corp.’s platform as dominated by extreme content.
2. Manipulated Images: Allegedly manufactured images showing advertisers’ posts next to extremist content to mislead viewers.
3. Intention to Damage: Aimed to alienate advertisers from X Corp. and harm its business.
4. Selective Following and Manipulation: Media Matters accused of manipulating its X account to create misleading ad/content pairings.
5. Excessive Scrolling and Refreshing: Allegedly engaged in unnatural user behavior to generate desired ad/content pairings.
6. Omission in Reporting: Failed to disclose the manipulated and rare nature of the content pairings.
7. Impact on Advertisers: Many advertisers, misled by the report, withdrew their ads from X.
8. Privacy Settings Manipulation: Used privacy settings to hide its methodology from the public.
🚨 BREAKDOWN OF X CORP V. MEDIA MATTERS:
- Legal Claims by X Corp. -
1. Interference with Contract: Accuses Media Matters of intentionally disrupting its contracts with advertisers.
2. Business Disparagement: Claims Media Matters disparaged X Corp.'s product quality through false statements.
3. Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage: Alleges wrongful conduct by Media Matters disrupted potential economic benefits.
- Legal Claims by X Corp. -
1. Interference with Contract: Accuses Media Matters of intentionally disrupting its contracts with advertisers.
2. Business Disparagement: Claims Media Matters disparaged X Corp.'s product quality through false statements.
3. Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage: Alleges wrongful conduct by Media Matters disrupted potential economic benefits.
🚨 BREAKDOWN OF X CORP V. MEDIA MATTERS:
- Jurisdiction and Venue -
1. Subject Matter Jurisdiction: Based on diversity of citizenship and amount in controversy exceeding $75,000.
2. Personal Jurisdiction: Over Media Matters due to its campaign's targeted impact on Texas, where X Corp. has significant business.
3. Venue: Deemed proper in the district where significant parts of the events occurred.
- Jurisdiction and Venue -
1. Subject Matter Jurisdiction: Based on diversity of citizenship and amount in controversy exceeding $75,000.
2. Personal Jurisdiction: Over Media Matters due to its campaign's targeted impact on Texas, where X Corp. has significant business.
3. Venue: Deemed proper in the district where significant parts of the events occurred.
🚨 BREAKDOWN OF X CORP V. MEDIA MATTERS:
- Desired Legal Outcomes for X Corp. -
1. Compensation for damages caused by the defendants' actions.
2. Injunctions to remove the disputed article from all platforms controlled by Media Matters.
3. Recovery of litigation costs and attorneys’ fees.
Any other relief deemed just and proper by the court.
- Desired Legal Outcomes for X Corp. -
1. Compensation for damages caused by the defendants' actions.
2. Injunctions to remove the disputed article from all platforms controlled by Media Matters.
3. Recovery of litigation costs and attorneys’ fees.
Any other relief deemed just and proper by the court.
🚨 BREAKDOWN OF X CORP V. MEDIA MATTERS:
- Legal Analysis -
1. Defamation and Business Disparagement: Central to the case is whether Media Matters’ actions constituted defamation or business disparagement, which requires proving the falsity of the statements and malicious intent.
2. Contractual Interference: X Corp. must demonstrate that Media Matters intentionally and knowingly interfered with its contractual relationships.
3. Prospective Economic Advantage: X Corp. needs to show that Media Matters' actions directly led to the loss of potential economic benefits.
- Legal Analysis -
1. Defamation and Business Disparagement: Central to the case is whether Media Matters’ actions constituted defamation or business disparagement, which requires proving the falsity of the statements and malicious intent.
2. Contractual Interference: X Corp. must demonstrate that Media Matters intentionally and knowingly interfered with its contractual relationships.
3. Prospective Economic Advantage: X Corp. needs to show that Media Matters' actions directly led to the loss of potential economic benefits.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
