Two civil rights groups say that under European Union law, social media platforms have a duty to release data so that they can track ’misinformation.’
Elon Musk’s social media platform X is challenging a ruling from a Berlin judge that requires the platform to release data ahead of Germany’s upcoming national election.
The court made an urgent injunction on Feb. 7 after the plaintiffs, the civil rights groups Democracy Reporting International (DRI) and the Society for Civil Rights (GFF), alleged that the platform refused to provide Democracy Reporting International with data.
With Sunday’s election looming, X wrote on its Global Government Affairs account on Feb. 18 that the decision from a judge in the Berlin Regional Court “egregiously undermines our fundamental right to due process and threatens the privacy rights and free speech of our users.”
Democracy Reporting International said that it aims to use X’s data to “study the influence of social media platforms on the upcoming Bundestag election and to increase transparency regarding potential manipulations before the vote.”
It claims that “access to relevant metrics” prevents “disinformation from spreading.”
It said that under the Digital Services Act, an EU-wide regulation that regulates the obligations of digital services, platforms have a duty to grant researchers access to relevant data.
Related Stories
X said on Feb. 13 that: “Without giving X any opportunity to respond or comment on the suit, and notwithstanding that the application lacked crucial information, a court has ordered X to provide the organizations with unrestricted access to this data, in flagrant violation of our constitutionally guaranteed right to be heard.”
X added it “believes this ruling violates fundamental rights to due process that are guaranteed by the German Constitution.”
The social media company said it is “committed to defending these rights through the legal system and will not back down in the face of injustice.”
X also alleged the Berlin judge is biased.
A GFF spokeswoman told The Epoch Times by email: “X claims that the judge who issued the preliminary injunction was previously employed by GFF. The truth is that in early 2023, the judge spent three months of his legal training as a legal trainee at GFF.”
She said that during that time, the judge was not involved in the lawsuit against X.
“It is common for judges to rule on cases involving organizations, law firms, or executive authorities where before they completed a part of their legal training. This alone does not suffice for concerns about bias,” the spokeswoman said.
Alternative for Germany
Elon Musk’s support of the right-wing Alternative for Germany (AfD) party, which is currently polling second, triggered calls for the EU to intervene. resulting in additional scrutiny of the social media platform in recent weeks.
On Dec. 28, the German paper Welt am Sonntag published a guest editorial by him headlined “Only the AfD Can Save Germany.”
In it, Musk criticized Germany’s energy policies as “geopolitically naive,” saying they relied too heavily on coal, imported gas, and intermittent renewables while phasing out nuclear power.
Thierry Breton, the former head of the EU Commission’s digital agenda, directly addressed AfD leader Alice Weidel in a post on X on Jan. 4, cautioning that her live chat, shared with Musk’s 210 million followers, would give her “a significant and valuable advantage” over competitors.
Breton had previously warned Musk over his Trump interview in August 2024 and said there was a “risk of amplification of potentially harmful content in connection with events with major audiences around the world.”
Digital Services Act
The Digital Services Act requires social media platforms to remove, and take other specified steps to deal with what is deemed disinformation. The Digital Services Act fully came into force in 2024.
The European Commission relies on officially designated fact-checkers, some of whom are nongovernmental organizations.
These entities flag specific pieces of content for platforms to review. Platforms are then obligated to act, either by taking down the content or investigating it further.
Norman Lewis, visiting research fellow at the think tank MCC Brussels and former PwC director and former director of technology research at Orange UK previously told The Epoch Times it is a system which “institutionalizes non-accountability.”
He said that platforms have to comply and that they have no choice if they want to continue operating in Europe.
“The fact-checkers are not accountable to anyone. In the end, the commission can claim they’re not censoring but Big Tech is, despite the fact that the commission created the environment that forces this censorship.
“If they don’t act upon it, then there are very severe penalties.”
Reuters contributed to this report.
