X Corp. v. Center for Countering Digital Hate: dismissed in 2024 as a case 'about punishing the defendants for their speech,' argued on appeal September 30, 2026, decision pending

People and organizations

Elon Musk, X (formerly Twitter)

Places

United States

Evidence label

Primary record — A court filing, ruling, agency document, executive order, inspector general report, official dataset or regulator order that we opened directly. More

Research records

C035

What happened

In July 2023, X Corp., the Elon Musk-owned company that operates the platform formerly called Twitter, sued the Center for Countering Digital Hate, a nonprofit that publishes research on hate speech online, accusing it of driving advertisers away by publicizing harmful content on the platform [4]. On March 25, 2024, U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer dismissed the case in full [1]. He struck the breach-of-contract and tort claims under California's anti-SLAPP statute, which targets lawsuits aimed at protected speech, and dismissed the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act claim because X had not alleged losses from technological harm [1]. He denied X leave to amend, finding the proposed new damages allegations futile and expressing concern that amendment could have a dilatory motive [1].

X appealed. The Ninth Circuit scheduled argument for June 5, 2025, then on April 8, 2025 pulled the case from the calendar and held it in abeyance pending the mandate in another Ninth Circuit case, Gopher Media LLC v. Melone, No. 24-2626 [3]. X moved to lift the stay in December 2025; the court granted the unopposed motion on August 24, 2026 and heard argument in San Francisco on September 30, 2026 [3].

Why it matters

The most-quoted line from the case is Judge Breyer's: "This case is about punishing the Defendants for their speech" [1]. That characterization is the district judge's, made in the context of ruling on an anti-SLAPP motion; it is not a finding by the appeals court, which has not yet ruled [1][2]. The case is widely watched because it tests whether a platform can use its terms of service and computer-fraud law against researchers who collect public posts to study the platform, which groups including the Knight First Amendment Institute, the ACLU and the Electronic Frontier Foundation argued in amicus briefs would shut down public-interest research [2].

The evidence

The district court record is public. Breyer's order concluded that X's tort claims lacked a plausible theory of causation and sought impermissible damages for the center's publications, and that X's proposed additional damages allegations for the contract claim were futile [1].

At the September 30 argument, the three-judge panel of Eric D. Miller, Andrew D. Hurwitz and Jennifer Sung pressed X's lawyer on the same points [4]. Judge Miller said the chain from data collection to report to advertiser reaction "seems very attenuated for contract damage" and asked whether the center could be liable for publishing true statements [4]. Judge Hurwitz said he did not understand X's platform-security argument "since all of that information is available to anybody who logs on to X," and questioned whether the center's access to a Brandwatch account through the European Climate Foundation was unauthorized given Brandwatch's own contract language [4]. When the center's lawyer asked the panel not to let X amend its complaint, arguing Musk uses amendment to wear down adversaries, Judge Miller replied, "Even rich plaintiffs are entitled to liberal amendment, aren't they?" [4].

As of October 26, 2026, the CourtListener docket shows no entry after the September 25 supplemental-authority letter and no opinion, and the Knight Institute's case page lists the status as "Awaiting decision" [3][2].

Response and counterpoints

X's counsel argued the case concerns "invasion of privacy and the economic harm" from the reports rather than speech, that the veracity of the center's statements does not matter to a contract claim, and that the center and the European Climate Foundation "conspired together" to obtain X data through shared Brandwatch credentials [4]. X's complaint alleged the center was funded by unknown individuals and foreign governments [4]. The center's counsel asked the panel to affirm and said the foundation understood it could share Brandwatch access [4]. Neither side commented after argument [4].

What remains uncertain

There is no appellate determination; a panel's questions at argument do not predict its ruling, and the Ninth Circuit could affirm, reverse in whole or part, or remand with leave to amend [3][4]. The docket does not explain how the Gopher Media decision that prompted the abeyance bears on this appeal; both sides filed supplemental-authority letters after the stay was lifted [3]. The size of X's claimed advertising losses was never tested on the merits because the case ended at the pleading stage [1]. X's allegations about the center's funding and foreign backing are allegations in a complaint, not findings [4]. The "punishing speech" characterization should be attributed to Judge Breyer, and to the center's counsel quoting him, not presented as settled law [1][4].

Money and method

Entities: X Corp. (plaintiff-appellant); Center for Countering Digital Hate, Inc. and Ltd., and Stichting European Climate Foundation (defendants-appellees) [3]. Money type: X's claimed damages are unquantified advertising-revenue losses alleged in the complaint; no amount has been awarded or adjudicated [1][4]. Period: complaint July 2023; district court dismissal March 25, 2024; abeyance April 8, 2025 to August 24, 2026; argument September 30, 2026 [1][3]. Status: on appeal, No. 24-2643, awaiting decision as of October 26, 2026 [2][3].

Sources cited

1. [1]
   X Corp v CCDH dismissal — US District Court, 2024-03-25.

   supports · Page 1 ('This case is about punishing the Defendants for their speech'); pages 35-43 and 51 (breach of contract struck under anti-SLAPP, leave to amend denied); pages 43-47 (CFAA claim dismissed for lack of technological-harm losses); pages 47-51 (tort claims struck); page 51 (Doe defendants) · checked 2026-10-26 · source S041
2. [2]
   X v CCDH case page — Knight First Amendment Institute, 2026.

   supports · Case page: 'Status: Oral argument in the Ninth Circuit held on September 30, 2026. Awaiting decision.'; case numbers 23-cv-03836 (N.D. Cal.) and 24-2643 (9th Cir.); description of amicus briefs · checked 2026-10-26 · source S042
3. [3]
   X Corp. v. Center for Countering Digital Hate, Inc., et al., No. 24-2643 (9th Cir.) docket — CourtListener (Free Law Project), from PACER, 2026-09-25.

   supports · Docket entries 69 (June 5, 2025 argument scheduled), 70 (April 8, 2025 abeyance pending Gopher Media LLC v. Melone, No. 24-2626), 73 (December 10, 2025 motion to lift stay), 76 (August 21, 2026 argument notice), 78 (August 24, 2026 order lifting abeyance), 80-82 (hearing acknowledgments); 'Date Argued: Sept. 30, 2026'; no entries after September 25, 2026 · checked 2026-10-26 · source N-x-corp-v-ccdh-01
4. [4]
   X asks Ninth Circuit to revive data-scraping suit against hate speech monitor — Courthouse News Service, 2026-09-30.

   supports · Full article: panel of Judges Eric D. Miller, Andrew D. Hurwitz and Jennifer Sung; quotes from Peter Patterson (X), Dennis Brandon Trice (CCDH), and the judges; background on July 2023 complaint and March 2024 dismissal · checked 2026-10-26 · source N-x-corp-v-ccdh-02