X Files Lawsuit Against Media Matters in Order to Refute Claims That its Brand Safety Measures are Failing

As promised, Elon Musk’s X Corp has filed a brand new lawsuit against Media Matters, which accuses Media Matters, a non-profit misinformation research group, of fabricating evidence with a view to suggest that X is displaying ads from big-name brands alongside harmful content, including posts from neo-Nazi, anti-Semitic, and anti-LGBTQ accounts.

Media Matters has released several reports on this, a lot of which have included visual examples of ads from major brands displayed alongside harmful posts. These investigations have now led to a latest boycott of X ads, with several major brands, including Disney, Apple, and more, announcing over the weekend that they’re putting a pause on their X campaigns in light of those findings.   

In response, X has refuted the Media Matters report, with each owner Elon Musk and CEO Linda Yaccarino occurring the offensive, accusing Media Matters of manipulating their findings through inorganic means, which have resulted in non-indicative results.

As per X’s legal response:

“Media Matters knowingly and maliciously manufactured side-by-side images depicting advertisers’ posts on X Corp.’s social media platform beside Neo-Nazi and white-nationalist fringe content after which portrayed these manufactured images as in the event that they were what typical X users experience on the platform.”

Which will not be exactly what Media Matters has claimed in its reports, nevertheless it is the implication, that X users are potentially seeing ads from big-name brands alongside such posts.

X says that Media Matters has falsely triggered these ad impressions through inorganic means, which have corrupted its findings.

“Media Matters exclusively followed a small subset of users consisting entirely of accounts in one among two categories: those known to supply extreme, fringe content, and accounts owned by X’s big-name advertisers. The tip result was a feed precision-designed by Media Matters for a single purpose: to supply side-by-side ad/content placements that it could screenshot in an effort to alienate advertisers. Media Matters then resorted to endlessly scrolling and refreshing its unrepresentative, hand-selected feed, generating between 13 and 15 times more advertisements per hour than viewed by the typical X user, repeating this inauthentic activity until it finally received pages containing the result it wanted: controversial content next to X’s largest advertisers’ paid posts.”

I’m not entirely sure that X’s argument will delay here, in that, in effect, it’s admitting that it is feasible that ads may very well be shown next to any such content, inside certain parameters. Sure, X’s argument is that no one’s actually going to make use of the platform in this manner, which is why these results are invalid. But that’s an assumption that shouldn’t be needed, because X’s protective measures should stop such incidents from happening in any respect, ever, which, by X’s own admission, they’ve not.

Given this, I’m barely surprised to see X push ahead with this, and file a lawsuit based on these grounds. Elon had promised that a “thermonuclear lawsuit” can be filed against Media Matters the moment the courts opened on Monday, which it had seemed that he’d re-thought and opted to not pursue. But evidently, his legal team was just gathering their temporary, with the suit eventually registered later within the day.

At the identical time, Texas Attorney-General Ken Paxton has also opened his own investigation into Media Matters over potential fraudulent activity regarding its X reports.

Media Matters has already issued an announcement in response to Musk’s initial threats, saying that:

“[Elon] Musk is a bully who threatens meritless lawsuits in an try to silence reporting that even he confirmed is accurate. If he does sue us, we’ll win.”

Based on the available evidence, I’d suggest that it’s correct, nevertheless, the very means of defending such in court might be costly, which clearly advantages the world’s richest man over a non-profit.

However it does look like moving to the following stage, which can see Media Matters forced to defend its findings, on several fronts. It’ll be interesting to see what the final word consequence is from such, while Musk has also promised that more lawsuits are coming, as he seeks to show Media Matters and its supporters.

The following big query for X then is will advertisers now hold off on X ad spending till an official finding is handed down?

If that’s the case, that would have a big effect on X’s bottom line, and by enacting legal process, X could have forced its ad partners right into a stalemate, because the optics of resuming their campaigns while an official consequence is pending may very well be lower than ideal.

And X really can’t afford to lose more ad revenue, after already seeing a 60% decline in U.S. ad income year-over-year, resulting from Elon’s controversial changes on the app.

It’s also price noting that many brands actually halted their X ad spend resulting from Musk’s own tacit support of a standard anti-Semitic theory, via a post within the app, which he has since deleted. Musk has offered no apologies for this, and has as an alternative sought to re-focus attention on Media Matters, whom he’s now presenting as an enemy of free speech.

But really, it’s Musk’s own commentary that’s causing just as much, if no more headaches for the corporate, while its ad systems, based on various third-party reports, from Media Matters and others, are seemingly failing to supply adequate brand safety.

The best way forward, then, can be to acknowledge the potential of such, and to work with these groups to repair flaws in its systems.

But X has chosen a distinct path, which could drag out its losses, and expand the impacts.