IAAL - this is possibly the dumbest complaint i've read in a while.
Media matters claimed that advertisements were shown next to fringe content.
This complaint literally admits that happened, but claims it is somehow defamation because it only happened to media matters.
It doesn't matter if media matters did it in bad faith or not, the fact that it's true would still be a defense.
Even if you recast the complaint as "media matters claims we showed it like this to users", it would still be true because media matters was a user.
As an aside, they also point out it was in fact shown to some other user in the case of apple ;)
So the whole hullaboo X makes is totally self-defeating - they admit it was shown to a user, and in the case of Apple, a user besides media matters.
"They defamed me by claiming i murdered someone, and in fact, i only murdered one person - there are 7.99999 billion people i didn't murder!"
So, X spends pages in this complaint talking about how it's defamation, and then, because they know they don't have any leg to stand on there, they don't even make out a count of defamation. The closest they come is business disparagement.
Otherwise it's some weak interference claims.
The first inteference claim doesn't even state a claim - it doesn't claim any unlawful conduct, which is a required element. It also doesn't claim any intentional contract existed, and the defendant's actions would have to be intentionally targeted at such a contract.
The business disparagement rather than defamation is basically an attempt to avoid an Anti-SLAPP response (which will happen anyway), and a bad one at that.
The third interference claim is the closest to making out a real claim, but also misses pieces.
This reads like a rant in lawsuit form.