X Balks at <a href="https://www.archyde.com/broadcaster-alex-jones-to-pay-millions-of-dollars-to-sandy-hook-school-parents-for-spreading-conspiracy-theory-about-shooting/" title="Broadcaster Alex Jones to Pay Millions of Dollars to Sandy Hook School Parents for Spreading Conspiracy Theory About Shooting”>InfoWars Sale, Claiming Ownership of User Accounts
Social Media Platform Contesting Transfer Despite Ongoing Bankruptcy Proceedings
In a move that has surprised many, X, the microblogging platform formerly known as Twitter, is attempting to block the sale of conspiracy website InfoWars. X has filed a legal objection to the sale, asserting that users do not truly own their accounts and the platform maintains ownership even when sharing platform data.
InfoWars, the controversial platform run by conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, was put up for auction after Jones was ordered by court judgments to pay $1.5 billion to families of victims of the 2012 Sandy Hook school shooting.
The satirical news outlet, The Onion, announced its purchase of InfoWars earlier this month. However, the deal is on hold pending a court hearing next month.
Jones, alongside First United American Companies, a distressed asset buyer linked to Jones’s supplement business, has objected to the sale. They have accused the trustee overseeing the bankruptcy proceedings of colluding with The Onion and the families of Sandy Hook victims. Trustee Christopher Murray has denied these accusations, characterized them as an attempt to delay the sale.
While not directly related to the accusations leveled by Jones and FUAC, X’s reasoning is adding another layer of complexity to this unusual situation.
“X Corp’s TOS [terms of service] make clear that we own the X Accounts, as the TOS is explicit that X Corp. merely grants its users a non-exclusive license to use their accounts,” X indicated in court filings.
“Regardless of the accounts’ use,” they added, “X Corp. is plainly the owner of the X Accounts and the Services, and the Trustee cannot sell, assign, or otherwise transfer what it does not own or have an interest in.”
This argument underscores a growing tension between users and platforms regarding data ownership, particularly in the context of social media platforms which regularly collect and analyze vast amounts of user data.
X previously signaled its control over user accounts by repurposing the dormant @america handle during the previous election cycle, using it to promote a pro-Donald Trump super PAC.
The ultimate outcome of this multi-pronged legal dispute remains to be seen. It raises complex questions concerning platform control, user rights, and the monetization of digital platforms, hot topics warranting close consideration.
What are the legal precedents for ownership of user data generated on social media platforms?
## X vs. InfoWars: Who Owns User Data?
**Host:** Joining us today is legal analyst Sarah Kim to discuss a truly bizarre development in the ongoing saga of Alex Jones and InfoWars. Sarah, X, formerly Twitter, is stepping in to try and block the sale of InfoWars, arguing they own user data associated with the platform? Is this just another Twitter conspiracy, or is there something more to this story?
**Sarah:** Well, host, it certainly is a surprising move. While the details are still emerging, X’s objection seems to hinge on a interpretation of user agreements claiming that while users generate content, they don’t actually “own” their accounts or the data associated with them.
X argues that this data, which could include user interactions and follower lists among other things, belongs to them and cannot be transferred as part of the InfoWars sale [[1](https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/judge-review-alex-jones-attempt-block-infowars-sale-onion-rcna181377)]. This is a very novel argument, and one that could have widespread implications for how we think about user data ownership on social media platforms.
**Host:** This is certainly raising some eyebrows. InfoWars was ordered to be sold as part of a bankruptcy process to cover judgments awarded to Sandy Hook families after Jones spread demonstrably false information about the shooting. How might X’s legal challenge affect that process?
**Sarah:** It’s unclear at this point what the impact will be.
Judges overseeing bankruptcy proceedings typically aim to expedite the sale of assets to satisfy creditors. However, X’s claim could complicate matters, potentially leading to delays and further legal battles.
Ultimately, the court will need to decide whether X’s claim to user data outweighs the need to satisfy the judgments against InfoWars. This could set an important precedent for other social media platforms and their handling of user data in the future.
**Host:** A truly fascinating development. Sarah Kim, thank you for providing your insights on this complex situation. We’ll continue to follow these developments closely.
