In a striking win for free enterprise, the Ninth Circuit has cleared the path for Elon Musk’s X to pursue international lawsuits against Media Matters, challenging the watchdog’s delay tactics.
Last week, a Ninth Circuit panel in San Francisco overturned a lower court’s injunction, permitting X to continue litigation against Media Matters in Ireland after finding the nonprofit waived its forum selection rights through excessive delay, as Courthouse News Service reports.
The legal battle began when X, under Elon Musk’s leadership, initiated lawsuits against Media Matters across multiple global courts. The company argued that the nonprofit watchdog stalled in asserting its preferred venue for litigation. This set the stage for a complex jurisdictional showdown.
Media Matters claimed X’s actions were retaliatory, stemming from reports that the platform placed corporate ads alongside controversial white supremacist content. This prompted the nonprofit to file a countersuit in Northern California federal court. Their narrative paints X as the aggressor in a media war.
Earlier this year, Media Matters cited a forum selection clause in X’s terms of service during its San Francisco lawsuit. The goal was to confine X’s claims to that jurisdiction, avoiding battles in places like Ireland and Singapore. It seemed a clever move at the time.
By April, U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria, an Obama appointee, sided with Media Matters, ordering X to halt its ongoing lawsuit in Ireland and refrain from filing in the U.K. This injunction appeared to box X into a single courtroom. But the fight was far from over.
The group had known about X’s terms of service since the Ireland litigation began, even referencing them for other defenses before the Irish court. Yet, they waited over a year to raise the forum selection issue. Such delay raises questions about fair play in legal strategy.
“Media Matters had knowledge of X’s terms of service from the beginning of the Ireland litigation (and cited them in its briefs for other jurisdictional defenses before the Irish court), so it had all the information it needed to defend its rights. Yet instead of invoking the forum selection clause, Media Matters litigated in Ireland for over a year before it raised the issue for the first time in this action,” said the Ninth Circuit panel in the seven-page order.
Isn’t it curious how progressive groups demand swift justice but drag their feet when it suits them? The Ninth Circuit panel saw through this, noting X suffered prejudice by having to submit extra evidence and affidavits in Ireland. Equity, not gamesmanship, should guide our courts.
On Dec. 19, the Ninth Circuit panel, including Judges Daniel Bress (a Trump appointee), Salvador Mendoza Jr. (a Biden appointee), and Danny Boggs (a Reagan appointee from the Sixth Circuit), reversed the lower court’s anti-suit injunction. They found Media Matters’ delay unjustifiable. X could now press forward internationally.
The panel remanded the case to the federal court, suggesting it could evaluate if injunctions against other foreign lawsuits are needed. This nuanced ruling keeps options open for X. It’s a balanced approach under President Donald Trump’s influence on judicial fairness.
During November oral arguments, X’s attorney Paul Clement criticized the lower court for allowing Media Matters’ late forum claim. “There is no way to put Humpty Dumpty back together again. There was litigation happening in Texas. There is litigation happening in Ireland,” he argued.
Media Matters’ Justin Nelson countered that X could seek worldwide damages in U.S. courts, claiming the Ireland case focused only on jurisdiction. But if venue shopping is their defense, why not settle the matter cleanly in one place from the start?
In a March 10 complaint, Media Matters alleged X’s multiple lawsuits aimed to intimidate media and reclaim lost ad revenue, costing them millions and forcing layoffs of over a dozen staff. Yet, isn’t accountability for biased reporting a legitimate corporate concern, not mere vengeance?
This Ninth Circuit decision marks a significant moment for X to hold critics accountable on a global stage. As progressive watchdogs cry foul, one must ask: Shouldn’t those who wield media influence face the same scrutiny they demand of others?
