Media matters claimed that advertisements were shown next to fringe content.
This complaint literally admits that happened, but claims it is somehow defamation because it only happened to media matters.
It doesn't matter if media matters did it in bad faith or not, the fact that it's true would still be a defense.
Even if you recast the complaint as "media matters claims we showed it like this to users", it would still be true because media matters was a user.
As an aside, they also point out it was in fact shown to some other user in the case of apple ;)
So the whole hullaboo X makes is totally self-defeating - they admit it was shown to a user, and in the case of Apple, a user besides media matters.
"They defamed me by claiming i murdered someone, and in fact, i only murdered one person - there are 7.99999 billion people i didn't murder!"
So, X spends pages in this complaint talking about how it's defamation, and then, because they know they don't have any leg to stand on there, they don't even make out a count of defamation. The closest they come is business disparagement.
Otherwise it's some weak interference claims.
The first inteference claim doesn't even state a claim - it doesn't claim any unlawful conduct, which is a required element. It also doesn't claim any intentional contract existed, and the defendant's actions would have to be intentionally targeted at such a contract.
The business disparagement rather than defamation is basically an attempt to avoid an Anti-SLAPP response (which will happen anyway), and a bad one at that.
The third interference claim is the closest to making out a real claim, but also misses pieces.
This reads like a rant in lawsuit form.
Well... welcome to Texas.
Linda Yaccarino writes: https://twitter.com/lindayaX/status/1726747531843915965
Show, don't tell.
Were brand ads placed colocated with hateful content in a user feed? That's the only question that matters to advertisers at least. Attribution doesn't change the damage to their brand.
And even this lawsuit doesn't challenge that fact that the answer is "yes", ads did get placed next to hateful content - the lawsuit just claims results were skewed by gaming ad targeting and so aren't representative.
Lawsuit aside, how is this supposed to reassure advertisers? "Don't worry, we only showed your ad to fake users." Ok, thanks.
But that's just me.
I invite others to comment. I have heard that claim made baselessly by some, though perhaps others can provide a firm basis.
> An X post Wednesday afternoon said: “Jewish communties (sic) have been pushing the exact kind of dialectical hatred against whites that they claim to want people to stop using against them.” The post also referenced “hordes of minorities” flooding Western countries, a popular antisemitic conspiracy theory.
> In response, Musk said: “You have said the actual truth.”
Why sue for billions when you could sue for dr evil pinkie to mouth hundreds of thousands?
Media Matters therefore resorted to endlessly scrolling and refreshing its unrepresentative, hand selected feed, generating between 13 and 15 more times advertisements per hour than viewed by the average X user repeating this inauthentic activity until it finally received pages containing the result it wanted: controversial content next to X's largest advertiser's paid posts
"Your honor, the prosecution had to dig through thousands of transactions to find the one where I embezzled money!"
If I were to do a performance test, I do not run one request through and claim it is representational. I do a large test and test at 99th percentile. No one claims that since I ran many requests, my tests are invalid.
You are reaching out to find a bright spot.
What’s the argument then?
Further, how is this not free speech anyways.
of course they would refresh and scroll a lot.
On a platform supposed serving "millions" ..
That's, uhhh, at least 50,000 instances of IBM adverts next to Nazi hatespeech per million users per hour?
That's probably waaay to much for the company founded by Herman Hollerith and his whacky punch cards so loved by the Reich.