\n<\/p>\n
SINGAPORE: Singapore’s High Court dismissed a bid by the Singapore subsidiary of online platform X to sue a US-based media company over an article alleging that major brands\u2019 advertisements appeared next to pro-Nazi content on X.<\/span><\/p>\n Judicial Commissioner Low Siew Ling ruled in a judgment issued on Friday (Jun 19) that, despite arguable claims of defamation, malicious falsehood and losses incurred, Singapore was not the proper forum for the suit, and the case would be best heard in the United States.<\/span><\/p>\n The case was brought by X Corp\u2019s Singapore-incorporated subsidiary Twitter Asia Pacific, now known as X Asia Pacific Internet, against US-based non-profit Media Matters for America.<\/span><\/p>\n Media Matters is a research and information centre dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analysing and correcting misinformation in the US media.<\/span><\/p>\n X Asia Pacific brought Media Matters to court after the latter published an article on its website titled \u201cAs Musk endorses antisemitic conspiracy theory, X has been placing ads for Apple, Bravo, IBM, Oracle and Xfinity next to pro-Nazi content\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n In addition to the defamation and malicious falsehood suit heard in Singapore, X Corp also commenced proceedings against Media Matters in the US – specifically in the US District Court in Texas – and in Ireland.<\/span><\/p>\n The judge found X Asia Pacific had an arguable claim in defamation as statements made in the article, when read in context, could not be said to amount to \u201cnothing more than neutral, factual observations\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cThe title of the Article drew a deliberate association between the placement of the advertisements next to pro-Nazi content, and Mr Musk\u2019s alleged endorsement of antisemitic conspiracy theory,\u201d she said.<\/span><\/p>\n In its article, Media Matters wrote that \u201cduring all of this Musk-induced chaos, corporate advertisements have also been appearing on pro-Hitler, Holocaust denial, white nationalist, pro-violence, and neo-Nazi accounts\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n Judicial Commissioner Low found that the statement conveyed an impression to an ordinary, reasonable reader that the appearance of the advertisement reflected the \u201cauthentic experience of an average user of the X platform\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n X Asia Pacific argued that Media Matters\u2019 employees had set up and utilised a separate account which exclusively followed a subset of X platform users falling into two categories: those known to produce extreme, fringe content and the X Group\u2019s major advertising clients.<\/span><\/p>\n This alternate account only followed 30 X users, compared to the average of 219 X accounts followed by a typical active X user, \u201cto ensure that only a limited type of content would be featured\u201d in its feed.<\/span><\/p>\n According to the X subsidiary, Media Matters also \u201crepeatedly scrolled and refreshed the selected feed on the alternate account to generate 13 to 15 times more advertisements per hour than those viewed by an average X platform user\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n Media Matters did not dispute these assertions before the judge, who found that X Asia Pacific made a good arguable case that the offending statements in Media Matters\u2019 article were false and maliciously made in a calculated attempt to cause loss to the X Group.<\/span><\/p>\n Justice Low found that there was a good arguable case of damages suffered in Singapore in the form of a loss of advertising revenue as a result of the article.<\/span><\/p>\n Though X Asia Pacific was not named specifically in the article, she also found that the article could have referred to the Singapore subsidiary of X Corp, which was named.<\/span><\/p>\n However, Justice Low found that the X subsidiary failed to make a good arguable case that the article was published in Singapore.<\/span><\/p>\n X Asia Pacific claimed that at least 183 users based in Singapore had clicked on the webpage containing the article from the X platform to access the article 54 times.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n It also claimed that at least 7,455 users based in Singapore had interacted with an X post containing a hyperlink to the article.<\/span><\/p>\n No supporting evidence was used to support these assertions, and the company did not provide further details explaining how they were derived.<\/span><\/p>\n The judge ultimately agreed with Media Matters that X Asia Pacific fell short of establishing a good, arguable case of the article being published in Singapore.<\/span><\/p>\n Despite her findings that X Asia Pacific had arguable claims of defamation and malicious falsehood against Media Matters, Judicial Commissioner Low ruled that the appropriate forum to try X Asia Pacific\u2019s claims is in the US.<\/span><\/p>\n Justice Low found that X Asia Pacific\u2019s claims arose from \u201cstatements that were researched, written and uploaded for publication in the US, concerning the workings of a social media platform that was operated from the US\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cThe vast majority of the relevant witnesses and documentary evidence will be located in the US\u201d as well, she added.<\/span><\/p>\n Additionally, she substantial overlap in issues between the Singapore and Texas proceedings.<\/span><\/p>\n The actions in both suits were filed by X Group entities against the same defendant, arising from the same types of losses flowing from the publication of the same article.<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cThe potential duplication of resources and risk of conflicting judgments is therefore significant,\u201d she said.<\/span><\/p>\nARGUABLY DEFAMATORY, MALICIOUSLY FALSE: JUDGE<\/span><\/h2>\n
CASE BEST HEARD IN TEXAS: JUDGE<\/span><\/h2>\n