\n
![](\"https:\/\/fortune.com\/img-assets\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/GettyImages-1963458442-e1718892211109.jpg?w=2048\")
<\/p>\n [ad_1]
\n<\/p>\n
Elon Musk has shown he can dish out lawsuits as well as he fights them.<\/p>\n
Musk and his companies have filed at least 23 lawsuits in federal courts alone since July of 2023, a Fortune<\/em> analysis of federal court records shows. Combined with state suits, Musk, Tesla<\/a>, X<\/a>, and SpaceX<\/a> have sued competitors, startups, law firms, watchdog groups, individuals, the state of California, federal agencies, and pop star Grimes, who is the mother of three of his children.<\/p>\n Musk has been so legally aggressive that one judge decided his litigation was more about revenge than justice: \u201cThis case is about punishing the defendants for their speech,\u201d the judge said.<\/p>\n In interviews with Fortune,<\/em> law professors who have studied Musk said the lawsuits display a combative, often retaliatory approach toward litigation. In cases against small nonprofits that have criticized his content moderation policies on X, as well as suits against the Department of Justice and National Labor Relations Board relating to his treatment of employees, Musk frequently goes on the offensive when his business practices are challenged by outsiders.<\/p>\n Angela Aneiros, a law professor at Gonzaga University, told Fortune<\/em> the suits Musk has filed are fueled by the billionaire\u2019s wealth and influence. Musk \u201cisn\u2019t dissuaded by losing,\u201d she said, and he has the resources to litigate, appeal, and relitigate disputes until he wins.<\/p>\n \u201c[Musk and his companies] are bringing these lawsuits to punish whoever he\u2019s suing for criticizing him or pointing out the truth,\u201d Aneiros said. \u201cHe\u2019s just like, \u2018I want to punish you, and I have the ability to do that.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n X, SpaceX, and the law firms representing Musk in federal cases did not respond to multiple requests for comment.<\/p>\n Some of the complaints Musk has brought are centered around protecting his business interests. After California passed a law forcing social media companies to publish their policies around policing hate speech and disinformation, X sued the state on the grounds the law violated free speech protections<\/a>. Tesla, which is listed as a plaintiff in more federal cases than any other Musk company (12), alleged in a suit this summer that one of its suppliers misappropriated trade secrets<\/a>. The defendant, Matthews International, called the complaint meritless and \u201ca new tactic in their ongoing efforts to bully Matthews<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n Others appear more personal. In 2023, X sued a prominent Wall Street law firm hired by Twitter\u2019s previous management the year prior<\/a> after Musk tried to back out of his agreement to purchase the company. The suit alleged Twitter\u2019s $90 million payment to the firm was an \u201cunjust enrichment,\u201d and that the firm \u201ctook funds from the company cash register while the keys were being handed over.\u201d The law firm has denied X\u2019s claims. The case remains open and a judge has ruled the dispute should be sent to arbitration. In another filing last September<\/a>, Musk sued Grimes (real name Claire Boucher) to establish a parent-child relationship with their three children. Grimes has filed her own custody suit against Musk in California, and the case was sealed in December<\/a>.<\/p>\n X, Musk\u2019s most recent business venture, has been the billionaire\u2019s most controversial vehicle for litigation in the last year. Since July of 2023, the company has filed at least seven federal lawsuits on a range of disputes. Most have been related to X\u2019s content moderation policies and ad revenue.<\/p>\n Last August, the company sued the Center for Countering Digital Hate<\/a> (CCDH), a watchdog group working to stop online hate speech, after it released a report claiming that under Musk, Twitter had reinstated accounts of\u00a0\u200b\u200b\u201cneo-Nazis, white supremacists, misogynists, and spreaders of dangerous conspiracy theories<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n X responded with a complaint of its own which accused CCDH of scraping data off the site\u2014a breach of its terms of service\u2014and alleged that the watchdog group\u2019s report had cost the company \u201ctens of millions of dollars\u201d in ad revenue.<\/p>\n Musk\u2019s suit, filed in federal court in the Northern District of California, was thrown out by Judge Charles Breyer, who wrote in his decision that despite what X claimed in its complaint, the heart of the lawsuit was about \u201cpunishing the defendants for their speech.<\/a>\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cSometimes it is unclear what is driving a litigation, and only by reading between the lines of a complaint can one attempt to surmise a plaintiff\u2019s true purpose,\u201d Breyer wrote. \u201cOther times, a complaint is so unabashedly and vociferously about one thing that there can be no mistaking that purpose. This case represents the latter circumstance.\u201d<\/p>\n But even as the case against CCDH was dismissed unequivocally, Musk and X have continued to bring litigation against groups who have raised concerns about the company\u2019s moderation policies and disrupted the platform\u2019s ad revenue.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n In November, X sued the liberal advocacy group Media Matters<\/a> after it published a report<\/a> alleging the social media site had placed ads for brands like IBM<\/a>, Oracle<\/a>, and Apple<\/a> next to posts idealizing Hitler and the Nazis, causing some of the sponsors to pause their advertising. The nonprofit\u2019s president has called the lawsuit \u201cfrivolous\u201d and has stood behind its reporting<\/a>.<\/p>\n Just this month, Musk declared \u201cwar\u201d on an advertising group known as GARM<\/a>, accusing the nonprofit in a fresh lawsuit of violating antitrust laws<\/a> by colluding with a group of brands to pull ad spending from X after Musk acquired it in 2022. The court has issued summons to the defendants named in the complaint. In response to the suit, GARM\u2019s parent organization, the World Federation of Advertisers, which is also named in the complaint, announced it was discontinuing the program due to limited resources.<\/p>\n \u201cGARM is a small, not-for-profit initiative,\u201d the group said in a statement. \u201cRecent allegations that unfortunately misconstrue its purpose and activities have caused a distraction and significantly drained its resources and finances.\u201d The group has not yet filed a response in court.<\/p>\n Musk is also personally bankrolling a suit against Disney\u2014which paused advertising on X last year<\/a>\u2014brought by former Mandalorian<\/em> actress Gina Carano over her termination<\/a>. Disney has claimed First Amendment protections and the case is headed for trial in 2025.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cHe wants the best of both worlds,\u201d Aneiros told Fortune<\/em>. \u201cHe wants to be able to say whatever he wants to say, and he wants some ruling to say that [other] companies can\u2019t do anything, because it\u2019s free speech.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cIf he can get past a motion to dismiss and extend litigation, a lot of these [groups] that he\u2019s suing\u2026they don\u2019t have the power to continue to fight,\u201d Aneiros said. \u201cThat is really, really concerning to me. Musk can bring these baseless lawsuits, he has these unlimited funds, and rather than fight it these companies will just shut down.\u201d<\/p>\n GARM isn\u2019t the only nonprofit that has been outgunned by the billionaire. Media Matters announced in May that it was forced to lay off more than a dozen staff members<\/a>, in part due to the cost of the legal battle with Musk. CCDH\u2019s current website<\/a> includes a link to donate along with a note that claims \u201cfighting against Elon Musk\u2019s lawsuit has cost us thousands of dollars and delayed our work to hold social media giants accountable.\u201d<\/p>\n Part of the reason Musk appears unaffected by prior legal defeats may be because his tactics have changed.<\/p>\n Recently, some legal experts have accused the billionaire of \u201cforum shopping\u201d\u2014the practice by which litigants choose courts or jurisdictions that are most likely to give them favorable ruling\u2014and one judge in Texas seems to have become a particular favorite.\u00a0<\/p>\n Whereas the CCDH suit was filed in California, X brought the Media Matters case before U.S. judge Reed O\u2019Connor in Fort Worth, even though neither party is based in Texas. O\u2019Connor, a George W. Bush appointee, is a contributor to the Federalist Society who has handed down favorable rulings for conservatives in the past. His most recent financial disclosures show he\u2019s invested between $15,001 and $50,000 in Tesla stock<\/a>.\u00a0<\/p>\n As with CCDH, Media Matters filed a motion to dismiss X\u2019s case against it, but O\u2019Connor has allowed the discovery process to begin.\u00a0<\/p>\n Aneiros told Fortune<\/em> the Media Matters case was one of the lawsuits Musk is involved in that she is watching most closely.<\/p>\n \u201cIt has the potential to force companies not to say things because they don\u2019t want to get sued if they criticize X or Musk,\u201d she said. \u201cI don\u2019t know what\u2019s going to happen in that case. I don\u2019t think it should be any different than the CCDH case, but because it\u2019s in front of that other judge, we\u2019ll see what happens with that one.\u201d<\/p>\n Until recently, O\u2019Connor was presiding over the case against advertisers as well, but recused himself on Aug. 13<\/a>. Although the judge gave no reason for his recusal, the announcement came shortly after NPR published a report highlighting his Tesla investments<\/a>.<\/p>\n O\u2019Connor\u2019s office did not respond to Fortune<\/em>\u2019s requests for comment.<\/p>\n Fort Worth isn\u2019t the only favorable jurisdiction Musk has found in Texas.\u00a0<\/p>\n In August 2023, the DOJ filed a complaint<\/a> against SpaceX alleging that the company routinely discriminated against refugees and asylum seekers in its hiring process. In response to the suit Musk called the complaint \u201ca weaponization of the DOJ for political purposes<\/a>,\u201d and in September the rocket and satellite maker hit back with a lawsuit of its own<\/a> in Brownsville, Texas.\u00a0<\/p>\n In the suit, SpaceX complained that the process for appointing administrative judges who hear cases involving employment bias against immigrants was unconstitutional. U.S. district judge Rolando Olvera, a Trump appointee, backed the company\u2019s claim, suspending the DOJ case against SpaceX<\/a>.<\/p>\n Joan MacLeod Heminway, a law professor at the University of Tennessee, told Fortune<\/em> that Musk has taken a conservative view on the power of federal agencies and their ability to regulate businesses.<\/p>\n \u201cI think the advice of counsel that he\u2019s getting is that there are some openings for those kinds of lawsuits now,\u201d Heminway said. \u201cWe\u2019re in a very dynamic stage\u2014especially when it comes to government lawsuits\u2014with respect to federal agencies and how much power they should have.\u201d<\/p>\n It\u2019s a strategy SpaceX has employed more than once, and the company has fought tooth and nail to keep other cases in Texas. After the U.S. Labor Relations Board accused the rocket maker<\/a> of illegally firing employees, SpaceX filed a suit against the NLRB a day later<\/a>, again calling into question the constitutionality of the government agency\u2019s structure. Like the DOJ suit, the complaint was filed in Brownsville.<\/p>\n This time, though, Judge Olvera ruled the case had to be transferred to California, where the events that triggered the suit occurred.<\/p>\n In a complex string of legal motions, SpaceX then appealed to a U.S. circuit court twice to have the transfer reconsidered. The appeals court finally granted the company a temporary block on the NLRB case in May<\/a>. The case is still in Brownsville, though the NLRB has been given approval to move to transfer it to California<\/a>.<\/p>\n In fact, the company filed a second suit against the NLRB in the spring<\/a> on the same issue, this time in Waco, Texas, under another Trump appointee, Judge Alan Albright. Under a standing order, all non-patent civil cases in Waco are assigned to Albright<\/a> (Olvera, in Brownsville, gets 50% of civil cases<\/a>). Albright granted SpaceX a temporary block on the NLRB case in July<\/a>.<\/p>\n \u201cHe doesn\u2019t like losing, and if he loses based on a current rule, he\u2019s going to challenge the rule,\u201d Heminway told Fortune.<\/em> \u201cOr he\u2019s going to challenge the ruling if it\u2019s not made by the highest authority in the land.\u201d<\/p>\n In personal legal battles, Musk has shown an equal determination to see things through. Earlier this year, the billionaire filed a suit against OpenAI and its CEO Sam Altman<\/a>. Musk, who cofounded the startup, and has since launched his own AI venture, accused OpenAI of abandoning its mission to develop artificial intelligence for the benefit of humanity rather than for profit.<\/p>\n This summer, Musk withdrew the suit, filed in San Francisco\u2019s Superior Court, one day before a judge was prepared to hear OpenAI\u2019s motion to dismiss the case. But on Aug. 5 Musk doubled down with a new complaint<\/a>.<\/p>\n Unlike the previous complaint, the new case has been filed in federal court. The federal case allowed Musk\u2019s lawyer Marc Toberoff to include allegations of civil racketeering, whose suit argues that OpenAI and Altman conspired to defraud the billionaire, who made investments in the startup on the assumption the product would be open-source.<\/p>\n \u201cOpenAI was Sam Altman\u2019s Trojan horse,\u201d Toberoff told Fortune<\/em> in a statement. \u201cThis lawsuit at its core holds defendants accountable for their intentional misrepresentations to Elon Musk and to the public.\u201d<\/p>\n In response to the initial suit, OpenAI published emails it said were sent by Musk in 2018 suggesting the startup should become part of Tesla, and said Musk understood early on that OpenAI\u2019s mission did not imply open-sourcing<\/a>.<\/p>\n \u201cAs we said about Elon\u2019s initial legal filing, which was subsequently withdrawn, Elon\u2019s prior emails continue to speak for themselves,\u201d a spokesperson for OpenAI, told the Washington Post <\/em>after the second suit was filed<\/a>.<\/p>\n \u201cHe basically is just not afraid of suing on any grounds,\u201d Heminway said. \u201cI\u2019m not saying he disregards the law, but he really does like to push the envelope on the law. He\u2019ll listen to legal advice, and then he does what he wants, and then somebody has to clean up the mess, from a lawyering perspective, afterward. And even if he loses the case, he doesn\u2019t seem to care.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\nX Corp. and advertising<\/strong><\/h2>\n
Forum shopping<\/strong><\/h2>\n
SpaceX and employment disputes<\/strong><\/h2>\n
Elon Musk\u2019s personal legal battles\u00a0<\/strong><\/h2>\n