Litigation · Corporate Proceedings

X Corp v CCDH: When Musk Sued the Researchers

The short answer

In July 2023, X Corp sued the Center for Countering Digital Hate — a British non-profit based in London — over research finding that hate speech had increased on the platform.

In March 2024 a federal judge threw the case out under California’s anti-SLAPP law, writing that it was about punishing the defendants for their speech. X Corp was refused permission to re-plead and appealed to the Ninth Circuit.

This site has an obvious interest in the outcome of litigation about whether critics of X Corp can be sued. That interest is declared below rather than hidden.

Last verified
28 July 2026
Case
X Corp. v. Center for Countering Digital Hate, Inc. et al., No. 3:23-cv-03836 (N.D. Cal.)
Filed
31 July 2023
Outcome at first instance
Dismissed 25 March 2024. Anti-SLAPP motion granted; leave to re-plead refused.
Open item
Ninth Circuit briefing has concluded. We have not verified whether judgment has been handed down.

Who was sued, and for what

The Center for Countering Digital Hate is a non-profit research organisation founded in the United Kingdom, with an American arm. In 2023 it published research — including a report titled “Toxic Twitter” — finding that following Musk’s acquisition of the platform in October 2022, accounts previously suspended for neo-Nazi, white supremacist, misogynist and conspiracist content had been reinstated, and that the platform stood to profit from advertising served alongside them.

X Corp sued in the Northern District of California. Its claims were framed around data rather than content: that CCDH had breached the platform’s terms of service, unlawfully scraped data, cherry-picked its findings, and unlawfully interfered with X’s relationships with advertisers, costing it tens of millions in revenue. A second defendant, the Netherlands-based Stichting European Climate Foundation, was accused of conspiring in the data collection.

The ruling

On 25 March 2024, US District Judge Charles Breyer granted CCDH’s motion to strike the state-law claims under California’s anti-SLAPP statute — the law designed to stop lawsuits brought to punish protected speech — and dismissed the federal claim. He refused X Corp permission to re-plead, and dismissed the claims against the European Climate Foundation as well.

His reasoning was unusually direct. He observed that a plaintiff’s true purpose is often obscure and must be inferred, and that this case was the opposite:

Judge Charles Breyer“This case is about punishing the Defendants for their speech.”

Court N.D. CaliforniaDate 25 Mar 2024Source 03

He found X Corp had brought the case to punish CCDH for publications criticising it, and perhaps to deter others contemplating similar criticism. On the data-scraping claims, he concluded it was impossible to read the complaint without concluding that X Corp was far more concerned with CCDH’s speech than with its collection methods, and rejected the argument that the research had created a security problem.

The footnote about Media Matters

Breyer supported his finding on purpose by pointing to a second case. In a footnote he noted that X Corp had filed a similar suit — not before his court — against Media Matters in November 2023, over reporting that advertisements from major brands were appearing beside neo-Nazi content. He recorded that Musk had threatened a “thermonuclear lawsuit” before filing, and noted the claim that the litigation was furthering X Corp’s efforts to protect free speech.

That Media Matters case is examined on our page covering November 2023. It remains live, and in July 2026 a Texas court ordered X Corp to produce deleted posts in it.

The responses

Roberta Kaplan, counsel for CCDH“even the world’s wealthiest man cannot bend the rule of law to his will”

Date 25 Mar 2024Source 05

Imran Ahmed, CCDH’s chief executive, said the ruling sent a strong message to those seeking to intimidate and silence independent research. X Corp said it disagreed with the decision and would appeal, and filed notice with the Ninth Circuit the following day.

The Knight First Amendment Institute, which filed an amicus brief, had argued that enforcing a platform’s terms of service to shut down public-interest research would violate public policy, and that automated collection of public data is one of the most important tools available to researchers studying how platforms shape public discourse.

X Corp as litigant: the pattern

Actions brought by X Corp against critics and advertisers
Defendant Filed Status
Center for Countering Digital Hate Jul 2023 Dismissed Mar 2024 under anti-SLAPP; on appeal
Media Matters for America Nov 2023 Ongoing; no finding on the merits
World Federation of Advertisers and others 2024 Dismissed Mar 2026

What the dismissal does and does not establish

An anti-SLAPP dismissal is a ruling that a claim targets protected speech and cannot proceed. It is not a finding that CCDH’s research was accurate, and the court made no assessment of the substance of the “Toxic Twitter” report.

Equally, the ruling is not neutral procedural housekeeping. The judge made an express finding about X Corp’s purpose in suing, and that finding is part of the public record.

The appeal has not been resolved on our information. A reversal remains possible and would change the position.

Our interest in this case, declared. This site is published in the United Kingdom and criticises X Corp and its owner. CCDH is a British organisation that was sued in California over research critical of the same company. We are therefore reporting on litigation whose outcome bears on our own position, and readers are entitled to know that when weighing how we have described it.

What we have done about it: quoted the judge rather than characterising him, stated plainly what an anti-SLAPP dismissal does not establish, recorded that the appeal is unresolved, and set out X Corp’s own claims — breach of terms, scraping, interference with advertisers — as it framed them. What we have not done is treat one district judge’s finding about motive as settled fact about anything beyond that complaint.

Outstanding on this page

Judge Breyer’s order is a public document and should be linked directly rather than cited through reporting. The status of the Ninth Circuit appeal, No. 24-2626, has not been verified as at this date and should be. CCDH’s “Toxic Twitter” report should be linked to the primary publication.

Sources

  1. X Corp. v. Center for Countering Digital Hate — case page and amicus briefKnight First Amendment Institute · case number, status, amicus argument
  2. Judge throws out Elon Musk’s X lawsuit against nonprofitNBC News · 25 March 2024 · the Toxic Twitter report, ECF dismissal
  3. Judge tosses X/Twitter lawsuit against group that produced hate speech studyDeadline · 25 March 2024 · the Media Matters footnote, Ahmed statement
  4. Elon Musk’s X loses lawsuit against Center for Countering Digital HateVariety · 26 March 2024 · anti-SLAPP motion, refusal of leave to re-plead
  5. KHF secures dismissal for CCDHKaplan Hecker & Fink · defence counsel · Kaplan statement
  6. X suit against online hate-speech watchdog gets tossed by judgeBloomberg Law · 25 March 2024
  7. Musk’s X Corp appeals dismissal of lawsuit against anti-hate groupReuters via AOL · notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit

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.