Irony off the Chart as Elon Musk Set to Sue ADL

The sprawling online landscape came down with a bad case of the ironies as Elon Musk announced on his X (formerly Twitter) platform that he would sue the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) for defamation. In a series of posts, the billionaire entrepreneur complained that the Jewish advocacy group had approached potential X advertisers with false accusations concocted to scare them away from doing business with the social media company. Musk wrote, “To clear our platform’s name on the matter of antisemitism, it looks like we have no choice but to file a defamation lawsuit against the Anti-Defamation League … oh the irony!”

He further explained his ire:

“Advertisers avoid controversy, so all that is needed for ADL to crush our US & European ad revenue is to make unfounded accusations. They have much less power in Asia, so our ad revenue there is still strong.

“This ‘controversy’ causes advertisers to ‘pause,’ but that pause is permanent until ADL gives the green light, which they will not do without us agreeing to secretly suspend or shadow ban any account they don’t like.

“That is the relationship they’ve had with X/Twitter for many years. Presumably, they have that with all western search or social media orgs.”

But is Musk on sound legal footing? And will his floating request of $22 billion impress a judge should this go to trial? We spoke with Liberty Nation’s Legal Affairs Editor Scott D. Cosenza, Esq. to determine the potential for a Musk win.

Mark Angelides: Scott, despite its name, the ADL has a history of being sued for defamation. And perhaps a notable history of losing such cases. Does Musk have a realistic shot of being next on the list? And to do so, what would he need to prove?

Scott D. Cosenza: Defamation is a state law claim, so unless and until Twitter (X) sues the ADL, we won’t know the precise standard required. That said, most state libel laws and the typical defenses are similar. The social media platform's lawyers would have to prove the ADL made false statements of fact that damaged the company.

MA: We know that Musk is not afraid to release communications – as we saw with the Twitter Files – so it seems likely that he has messages from the ADL to back up his case. But wouldn’t he also need corroboration from advertisers that it was the ADL’s “warnings” that scared them off?

SDC: Correspondence from companies who would have otherwise spent ad dollars on Twitter (X) would be helpful but not required. Musk’s first hurdle to clear is proof that the ADL lied about Twitter or misrepresented what it was doing regarding anti-Semitism on the platform. So, if the ADL said, for instance, “Twitter won’t help us protect the Jewish people,” or something similarly nebulous, Musk gets bupkis. If, however, the ADL said, “Twitter supports anti-Semitism,” that is another matter entirely. Should Twitter lawyers be able to establish such direct statements from the ADL, or worse, then the corroboration will take the form of the canceled orders and reduced receipts.

MA: This seems a more significant case than Musk just trying to protect his investment and revenue. Over the last few years, we’ve seen coordinated campaigns to scare off advertisers who might work with smaller media companies and even regular businesses that don’t follow the progressive mantra. If Musk is successful, or even if he isn’t, is this a warning shot across the bow to pressure groups?

SDC: The ADL is on the attack against social media accounts it disfavors. Critics say that Jonathan Greenblatt, the director and CEO, is using the organization to advance his political preferences. Greenblatt has dedicated his life to electing Democrats and advancing progressive politics. Right after college, he worked for President Bill Clinton’s campaign headquarters in Little Rock, AR, and he later became a senior adviser to President Barack Obama.

He had the chutzpah to weaponize the ADL brand, attacking a fellow Jew for political purposes. Musk revealed that the ADL “pushed hard” for the "Libs of TikTok" account to be banned. Chaya Raichik, the account owner, has never posted anything remotely anti-Semitic. She is remarkably effective at mocking progressives with their own words, however.

MA: I think this potential suit has animated social media users to such a high degree because the culture of accusation has been used to silence so many voices – especially those on the political right. It seems this could become a significant First Amendment case. What’s your take on the ramifications?

SDC: Defamation and the First Amendment are naturally at odds. It’s a tension the courts have wrestled with from the founding, and it continues with renewed vigor because of social media. We’ll have to wait until more facts about Greenblatt’s alleged scheming come to light before understanding the implications.