X Corp v Media Matters: Five Fronts Against One Watchdog
The short answer
In November 2023, Media Matters for America reported that advertisements for major brands were appearing beside pro-Nazi and white nationalist content on X. Advertisers left. X Corp sued.
What followed was not one lawsuit but five separate lines of pressure: litigation in Texas, a multi-jurisdiction litigation campaign, civil investigative demands from two state attorneys general, and a federal antitrust probe.
Three separate courts have described the investigations as likely retaliation for protected speech. The original Texas case is still live, and has produced no finding on the merits either way.
The report
Media Matters published its findings in November 2023, days after Musk endorsed an antisemitic post on X. The report said advertisements for brands including IBM, Apple, Disney, Lionsgate and Paramount had been served beside extremist content. Within days those advertisers and others had paused their spending. That episode is documented separately on our page on November 2023.
Front one: the Texas lawsuit
X Corp filed on 20 November 2023 in the Northern District of Texas. Its case is that Media Matters did not report a genuine user experience but engineered one — that it manipulated the platform’s algorithms to force the pairings, then presented them as typical.
X Corp’s complaintMedia Matters “knowingly and maliciously manufactur[ed] side-by-side images”
X Corp’s lawyers called the report intentionally deceptive and said it caused financial harm. Media Matters denies manipulating anything and maintains its reporting was accurate.
Key procedural steps since:
- August 2024 — a motion to dismiss is denied, allowing the claims to proceed.
- October 2024 — the Fifth Circuit blocks an order that would have required Media Matters to disclose its donors’ names and addresses, finding X Corp’s discovery demands disproportionate.
- July 2026 — Chief Judge Reed O’Connor orders X Corp to produce posts it had itself deleted. Media Matters had sought the posts of around fifteen accounts discussed in its reporting. Posts deleted by users themselves were treated differently.
Front two: the multi-jurisdiction campaign
X Corp did not confine itself to Texas. It pursued Media Matters in multiple jurisdictions internationally, until a California federal court preliminarily enjoined the campaign. The ACLU of the District of Columbia summarises that court as having recognised the litigation appeared designed more to bully Media Matters and inflict financial hardship than to pursue legitimate claims.
Fronts three and four: the state attorneys general
Within hours of a post by Stephen Miller urging state attorneys general to look at Media Matters, Missouri opened a probe. Within two days, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced an investigation into what he called potentially fraudulent activity, and issued a civil investigative demand. Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey followed with his own, into potentially unlawful business practices.
Both demands sought documents on the organisation’s finances, editorial process, newsgathering and affiliations with other groups monitoring extremist content. Both were blocked.
D.C. Circuit, Media Matters v Paxton“Media Matters is the target of a government campaign of retaliation”
In the Missouri case, the district court found the investigation chilled Media Matters’ speech and that the two states had coordinated. The Missouri Attorney General ultimately admitted he had uncovered no evidence of wrongdoing.
Front five: the Federal Trade Commission
On 20 May 2025 the FTC, under chairman Andrew Ferguson, issued its own civil investigative demand, seeking records on the nonprofit’s reporting and operations as part of a stated inquiry into advertiser boycotts and platform censorship.
Media Matters sued on 23 June 2025.
Media Matters’ filing“an ongoing campaign of retribution for exercising its First Amendment rights”
Judge Sooknanan granted a preliminary injunction halting the FTC’s demand in August 2025. The FTC appealed. The matter was subsequently settled, reported in May 2026.
The five fronts, side by side
| Front | Brought by | Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| Texas lawsuit | X Corp | Ongoing — no finding on the merits |
| Multi-jurisdiction litigation | X Corp | Preliminarily enjoined by a California federal court |
| Civil investigative demand | Texas Attorney General | Enjoined as likely First Amendment retaliation |
| Civil investigative demand | Missouri Attorney General | Enjoined; AG admitted no evidence of wrongdoing found |
| Antitrust investigation | Federal Trade Commission | Enjoined, appealed, then settled in 2026 |
It is not, however, a ruling that Media Matters’ reporting was accurate. The Texas case — the one that would actually test whether the report misrepresented the platform — remains undecided after nearly three years. It is entirely possible for a set of investigations to be retaliatory and for the underlying complaint about the reporting to have merit. Neither question has been answered.
Allegations on both sides remain allegations
X Corp’s claims are untested. No court has determined whether Media Matters manipulated the platform’s algorithms or misrepresented a typical user experience. A motion to dismiss being denied is a procedural step, not a finding that the allegations are true.
Media Matters’ reporting is also untested in court. Injunctions against the state and federal investigations concern the constitutionality of those investigations, not the accuracy of the report that provoked them.
Elon Musk is not a party. The claimant is X Corp. Nothing here is a finding about him personally.
What we have done about it: quoted the courts rather than characterising them, set out X Corp’s own claims in its own words, stated plainly that its case has never been tested, and recorded that the injunctions say nothing about whether the underlying report was right.
Outstanding on this page
Sources describe Stephen Miller’s role at the time of the November 2023 post differently, and we have not resolved it — his role is therefore not stated here. The California injunction is cited through the ACLU of DC’s summary rather than to the order itself and should be upgraded. The terms of the FTC settlement have not been reviewed. The docket in No. 4:23-cv-01175 and the D.C. Circuit opinion at 138 F.4th 563 should be linked directly.
Sources
- X ordered to turn over deleted posts in defamation case against Media MattersCourthouse News Service · July 2026 · the O’Connor order
- US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit — order (PDF)D.C. Circuit · 25 October 2025 · primary · Paxton and Bailey citations
- Andrew Ferguson targets news media as FTC chairUS Press Freedom Tracker · the FTC demand and Media Matters’ filing
- Media Matters for America v. Federal Trade CommissionACLU of DC · case page · the California injunction
- Key findings: Media Matters sues Federal Trade Commission to halt investigationPractical Law, Thomson Reuters · CID scope, Bailey admission, case citations
- FTC launches probe into Media Matters over allegations of advertiser collusionFox News · X Corp’s allegations in its own framing
- Court blocks FTC investigation into Media MattersEngadget · August 2025
- FTC settles with watchdog journalism non-profit Media Matters for AmericaWiggin and Dana LLP · May 2026 · the settlement
This article follows the standards set out in How This Site Sources Its Claims. If you believe anything on this page is inaccurate, please use our corrections policy and right of reply. Corrections are published, dated and logged.