From a department that I can’t touch because the name is different.
Sometimes little kids play a game where they claim they’ve changed their name, but you can no longer blame them for going by their old name. You know that never really works? Well, about that… Elon seems to be trying a corporate version of that trick in Australia, and it’s been equally successful.
It’s no secret that Elon’s ExTwitter has been in a battle with Australia this year over content removal requests, but there was another battle over a year ago in which Australia’s eSafety Commissioner ruled that ExTwitter’s child-friendly nature was disappointed with the process for handling abusive material. (CSAM) on the platform.
You may not remember, but a few weeks after taking over the site, Elon claimed that fighting CSAM was his “top priority.”
Nevertheless, he seems to have made ExTwitter’s CSAM problems even worse by firing most of his trust and safety team and discontinuing the use of industry standard tools to search for/remove known CSAM. That doesn’t even mention the time they reinstated an account that had been sharing some of CSAM’s infamously horrifying parts because the poster was an Elon supporter.
So not long ago, Australia’s eSafety Commissioner launched an investigation into how the company was dealing with CSAM. Elon decided not to take it seriously at all. From the eSafety Commissioner:
I evaluated Company X’s responses and identified 14 questions (many with multiple sub-questions) for which the notification failed to provide the required information. In some cases, Company X did not provide any answers to the questions, such as leaving boxes completely blank. In other instances, Company X provided incomplete or inaccurate answers.
On April 6, 2023, my office sent follow-up questions to Company X to provide Company X with a further opportunity to provide the information required in the notice. The communication stated that my office was seeking this information to assess whether Company X had complied with the notice. 1 Service Provider Notification to X Corp. esafety.gov.au
On May 5, Company X provided information in response to additional questions. It is clear from many of Company X’s subsequent responses that it had the information required in the notification and was able to provide that information in the first step.
For this reason, Australia fined ExTwitter $400,000 about a year ago. After the fine was assessed, Elon fought back and appealed the verdict, continuing his standard approach to many things: “Ignore it first, fight it in court later.”
He claimed that the fine was for actions taken by Twitter (which was under his watch), but that Twitter no longer exists because there is now another company called X that he runs. did. Therefore, any claim against “Twitter” must be invalid because X was operating under a completely different set of laws.
Because Elon thinks he’s smart and everyone else is very, very stupid.
Just to be clear, things are a little more complicated here. Part of the argument was that because Twitter is a Delaware-based company and X is a Nevada-based company, different laws apply in each state. But the idea that this absolves the company from dealing with legal problems that began under its previous structure still seems like one of those tricks only cocky frat boys would try.
Turns out this didn’t work. I don’t know what “not at all impressed” means in Australian, but I think it applies to this judge.
A central feature of this proceeding is the merger of Twitter Inc. into X Corp. on March 15, 2023. As a result, Twitter Inc ceased to exist. These facts were not in issue because they were the subject of an agreed statement of facts taken in evidence.
[โฆ.]
Adopting the language of Nevada law, Twitter Inc was a constituent corporation merged into X Corp. It is only when that event occurs that Twitter Inc ceases to exist, and Twitter Inc ceases to exist independently. X Corp’s “status” is as the surviving entity of a statutory merger in which Twitter Inc is a constituent entity merged into X Corp, with all subsequent legal consequences.
Then there was another claim made by ExTwitter. Essentially, it argued that under Australia’s Regulatory Powers Act, ExTwitter did not have to respond because the notices it received “did not specify the breach”. “Twitter” and “X” are different companies.
This seems like a bit of gamesmanship.
And once again, the judge was unimpressed, pointing out that the notice identified both companies.
In this case, Company X did not provide a convincing basis for concluding that the failure of the Infringement Notification to identify the violation may have harmed the company. As noted above, Company X submitted that the location of the alleged violation may indicate that the notification was addressed to the correct legal entity. However, in Company X’s own lawsuit, the location of the alleged violation is irrelevant to this question, and is also said to be an effect of the Online Safety Act itself or the merger of Twitter and Company X under Nevada regulations. Law. And, as the Secretary submitted, the infringement notice was addressed to X Corp, and both Twitter Inc and X Corp were identified as the relevant “providers.” There was no other explanation of how Company X was prejudiced by the fact that the notification did not specify where the failure to comply with section 57 of the Online Safety Act occurred. I don’t see any bias or even implicit bias. On the contrary, I accept the Commissioner’s submission that Company X had all it needed to know to consider the allegations made in the infringement notice.
I know Elon sometimes gets away with “cute” legal arguments. But wouldn’t it be better to just follow the law than try to tap-dance in defiance of the law with obviously stupid reasoning?
Filed Under: Australia, CSAM, Elon Musk, safety commissioner, name change
Company: twitter, x