Musk filed saying that he owns the X accounts and they aren't allowed to be sold according to the TOS. The X accounts were removed from the pending sale.
Instagram just shutdown the account of the suspected ceo killer. That person didn't break any social media rules (didn't post copyright or tell someone off or spam marketplace) but instagram has the right.
I don't see anyone shocked.
Both that and the InfoWars exchange were property transfers. The first a market transaction, the second by court order.
My default action would be to just take all the handles away. I wouldn't tolerate allowing courts to redefine my namespace into other people's property. Especially if I just paid $44 billion to purchase it!
I'd definitely not allow the new owners of Infowars to have Alex Jones personal Twitter handle(s) because they are not Alex Jones and doing so would be an admission that my namespace is not my private property, but that of someone else.
That's what courts do.
Rarely enough that there's not a whole lot of coverage but I'm finding a few cases:
We have previously written an OnPoint about the law concerning ownership of social media accounts in light of the explosive growth in the use of such media for commercial advertising, product development and customer engagement. We presented on this and related topics at the Federal Bar Association and MyLawCLE webinar on September 6, 2023. We then wrote an OnPoint about the Second Circuit’s decision in JLM Couture, Inc. v. Hayley Paige Gutman, in which the Second Circuit instructed that ownership and control of social media accounts created during employment or in connection with one’s employment should be determined on a case-by-case basis without a pre-determined multifactor test.
"From Creation to Control: Navigating Social Media Ownership in the Second Circuit" <https://www.dechert.com/knowledge/onpoint/2024/9/social-medi...> (24 Sep 2024)
And:
[T]he court issued a memorandum opinion regarding the social media accounts on April 3, 2015. The court ruled that the reorganized debtor was entitled to direct control of the social media accounts — a Facebook page and a Twitter account — because the accounts were business accounts, not Alcede’s personal accounts. The court’s analysis was thorough and will be frequently cited in future social media cases.
"Social Media Accounts — Bankruptcy Court Ruling Sets Precedent" <https://www.abfjournal.com/articles/social-media-accounts-ba...> (9 Jul 2015)
This is a decidedly different case than, say, squatting or hijacking an identifier, or having a service provider arbitrarily reassign it. Both instances of which definitely do occur.
The first often enough that there are multiple how-to guides to recovery and avoidance:
"How to deal with (and prevent) a hacked Twitter account" <https://sproutsocial.com/insights/hacked-twitter-account/>
"5 Signs Your X (Twitter) Account Is Hacked – And What To Do" <https://www.forbes.com/sites/technology/article/x-twitter-ha...>
As well as coverage of specific events:
"The original owner of @N gets his $50k Twitter handle back" <https://www.dailydot.com/debug/twitter-handle-n-hijacking-fi...> (2021)
Twitter does and has commandeered or arbitrarily seized accounts:
"Twitter commandeers @X username from man who had it since 2007 " <https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/07/twitter-took-x-h...> (26 July 2023)
It's perfectly reasonable for Twitter to care more about its own integrity and value, like how users would prefer things to be moderated, than whether people who Alex Jones owes money to can extract any value from his social media handles.
The difference between Elon Musk buying Twitter is that the previous owners sold it willingly and everyone accepts that Twitter is Musk's now, and he can do as he likes, even renaming the site. Nobody believes that the Onion or whoever is really Infowars just because some bankruptcy judge says so. When Musk acquired Twitter he continued operating the service. The new owners of Infowars have no intention of continuing it.
If anyone acquired a browser plugin or mobile app in a bankruptcy, got the app store credentials, then pushed updates changing the fundamental nature of the app to something its existing users don't want or expect, then they shouldn't be surprised if the app store just removes them. Same goes for social media handles.
If a court were to say "transfer the accounts", then a failure to do so would put the entity (a private individual, company, or other organisation or institution) in violation of the court's express order.
This would then also imply that any post containing illegal stuff is also his problem, wouldn't it?
Both parties are very interested in limiting the scope of that waiver in different ways, but that's the current law, and it tends to be broadly interpreted.
That's how lawyers look at internet comments like this.
I don't get why people conflate Elon Musk with the companies that he runs. I imagine he has controlling stakes in all of them, but for the most part he's probably not even a majority shareholder in most of the companies he's running.
For this filing, IIRC It was reported that Musk instructed X to step in on Jone's request for help. That feels different to me than GM shutting down a project. It feels politically motivated by Musk's personal beliefs then a decision being made on the company's behalf for the benefit of the company.
But I do accept the criticism that it was X that filed, not Musk and I mis-spoke in my original comment
X can and has taken any username they want away from a user for any or no reason.
Filing a brief in a bankruptcy auction that “this property is ours, not the debtor’s, and may not be auctioned or also” is an obvious way for them to publicly assert their rights and ownership.
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/10/31/elon-musk-has-pulled-more-th...
These are not places you want to invest in if you think there are any sorts of checks and balances on him.