Two prominent activist organizations, the Society for Civil Rights (GFF) and Democracy Reporting International (DRI), have filed a lawsuit against Elon Musk’s social media platform, X, in a Berlin court. The groups accuse X of breaching European law by refusing to provide the necessary data to track online disinformation ahead of Germany’s upcoming national election on February 23.
The lawsuit highlights that X has not granted access to crucial data, such as the reach, likes, and shares of posts. This data is essential for monitoring public discourse and identifying misinformation trends, the groups argue. They claim this lack of access violates the European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA), which mandates platforms to provide such data for transparency and accountability.
“Other platforms have given us access to track public debates, but X has not,” stated Michael Meyer-Resende, director of DRI.
The Role of the Digital Services Act
The DSA, a significant regulation introduced by the European Union, aims to combat the spread of disinformation and requires platforms to provide data for researchers to assess potential risks to democracy. GFF and DRI claim that X’s refusal to share data hinders efforts to monitor possible interference in elections.
Recent events, such as the controversial presidential election in Romania in 2024, have increased concerns over the impact of foreign interference through social media. Romanian authorities attributed a pro-Russian social media campaign as a key factor in the unexpected success of a pro-Russian candidate in the first round of voting, although Moscow denied involvement.
“Platforms are increasingly being weaponized to influence democratic elections,” said Simone Ruf, lawyer and deputy director of GFF’s Center for User Rights. “We must expose manipulation tactics and hold platforms accountable for addressing them.”
High Costs and Limited Access to Data
The lawsuit also emphasizes the financial challenges researchers face due to X’s restrictive data policies. While the platform offers limited free access to its data through an Application Programming Interface (API), accessing more data requires a pricey “Pro Access” subscription, which costs up to $5,000 per month.
A DRI spokesperson criticized this cost as “prohibitively expensive,” noting that even with the premium service, the data limit of one million posts per month is far too low to conduct comprehensive research on disinformation. The lawsuit claims that a single request related to a specific disinformation campaign could use up the entire monthly allowance.
The European Commission’s investigation into X confirmed these concerns, with a press release stating that the platform “appears to discourage researchers” by imposing high fees, effectively limiting research opportunities.
Changes to Data Access Under Musk’s Leadership
Since Musk’s acquisition of X, the platform has significantly altered how researchers access data. Previously, tools to track the spread of information were available for free, but now those same tools require a paid subscription. This shift has made it more difficult for researchers to identify and monitor harmful content on the platform.
DRI noted that this lawsuit is the first of its kind in Germany and the European Union to demand data access under the DSA, while the European Commission continues its investigation into X for potential violations of the law.
Musk’s Political Endorsements Raise Further Concerns
The timing of the lawsuit is critical, as Musk’s political activities have drawn further attention to the role of X in influencing public discourse. In January, Musk hosted Alice Weidel, leader of the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD), for an interview on the platform. Musk’s endorsement of Weidel’s party, which included the tweet, “Only the AfD can save Germany!” has raised alarm over the platform’s potential to amplify extremist views.
Despite some German political figures distancing themselves from X, the platform remains a major space for public discussions, making the demand for transparency even more pressing.
The Need for Greater Accountability
This legal battle underscores the broader issue of how social media platforms can shape public opinion and influence democratic elections. Activists argue that platforms like X must not be allowed to operate without oversight, given their significant societal impact.
“Platforms must be held accountable for their role in democracy,” said Ruf. “We need transparency to protect our democratic processes.”
