Texas judge who owns Tesla stock recuses himself from X’s advertiser lawsuit
Illustration by Laura Normand / The Verge
A Texas judge who was assigned two cases involving Elon Musk’s X platform has recused himself from one of them, shortly after a report that he owns stock in Tesla.
US District Court Judge Reed O’Connor was assigned to X’s recent antitrust lawsuit against advertisers over their boycott of the service, as well as a separate case against Media Matters, which the company sued for a report showing that X displayed ads from major brands next to pro-Nazi content. On Tuesday, O’Connor filed a notice to the court clerk recusing himself from the antitrust lawsuit. He still appears to be assigned to the Media Matters case as of Tuesday afternoon.
The recusal came just a few days after NPR reported on O’Connor’s Tesla stock holdings, which, according to a financial disclosure, fall between $15,001 and $50,000. Musk, of course, is Tesla’s CEO.
The report raised questions about O’Connor’s impartiality and X’s motivations in bringing the suits in this particular court. NPR reported that the federal court in northern Texas, unlike many other courts where judges are randomly assigned, doles out cases to judges based on which division they’re filed in. That gives plaintiffs an unusual level of certainty in who will likely hear their case. X and the suits’ defendants are not based in Texas, though Musk said recently he plans to move it to Texas. X did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Critics have accused X of forum shopping, or looking for a sympathetic judge or district to file its cases. Their argument is underscored by the fact that antitrust experts think X will have a tough time proving advertisers’ boycott violated the law. Former DOJ antitrust chief Bill Baer told the BBC that in general, “a politically motivated boycott is not an antitrust violation. It is protected speech under our First Amendment.”
Musk’s lawsuits have already been able to punish opponents with legal fees. The Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM), an advertiser coalition created by the World Federation of Advertisers (WFA), a defendant in X’s suit, reportedly disbanded in the wake of the complaint. Business Insider reported that the group felt it needed to use its limited funds to fight the suit.
X’s legal strategy has backfired in a different recent lawsuit, though. A California judge dismissed X’s suit against the nonprofit Center for Countering Digital Hate, saying the suit was about “punishing the Defendants for their speech.”
Illustration by Laura Normand / The Verge
A Texas judge who was assigned two cases involving Elon Musk’s X platform has recused himself from one of them, shortly after a report that he owns stock in Tesla.
US District Court Judge Reed O’Connor was assigned to X’s recent antitrust lawsuit against advertisers over their boycott of the service, as well as a separate case against Media Matters, which the company sued for a report showing that X displayed ads from major brands next to pro-Nazi content. On Tuesday, O’Connor filed a notice to the court clerk recusing himself from the antitrust lawsuit. He still appears to be assigned to the Media Matters case as of Tuesday afternoon.
The recusal came just a few days after NPR reported on O’Connor’s Tesla stock holdings, which, according to a financial disclosure, fall between $15,001 and $50,000. Musk, of course, is Tesla’s CEO.
The report raised questions about O’Connor’s impartiality and X’s motivations in bringing the suits in this particular court. NPR reported that the federal court in northern Texas, unlike many other courts where judges are randomly assigned, doles out cases to judges based on which division they’re filed in. That gives plaintiffs an unusual level of certainty in who will likely hear their case. X and the suits’ defendants are not based in Texas, though Musk said recently he plans to move it to Texas. X did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Critics have accused X of forum shopping, or looking for a sympathetic judge or district to file its cases. Their argument is underscored by the fact that antitrust experts think X will have a tough time proving advertisers’ boycott violated the law. Former DOJ antitrust chief Bill Baer told the BBC that in general, “a politically motivated boycott is not an antitrust violation. It is protected speech under our First Amendment.”
Musk’s lawsuits have already been able to punish opponents with legal fees. The Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM), an advertiser coalition created by the World Federation of Advertisers (WFA), a defendant in X’s suit, reportedly disbanded in the wake of the complaint. Business Insider reported that the group felt it needed to use its limited funds to fight the suit.
X’s legal strategy has backfired in a different recent lawsuit, though. A California judge dismissed X’s suit against the nonprofit Center for Countering Digital Hate, saying the suit was about “punishing the Defendants for their speech.”