Elon Musk’s X network joins the legal battle over Alex Jones’ Infowars. Experts say this is unprecedented.

() – Elon Musk’s social network accounts.

Jones’ company Free Speech Systems, the parent company of Infowars, was recently auctioned to help pay part of the nearly $1.5 billion Jones owes the families of Sandy Hook massacre victims after he was convicted. of defamation. Satirical news site The Onion was declared the winner of the auction, with the support of some of the families, in a seven-figure bid that Jones and his allies are challenging in court.

The sale includes the Infowars website, studio equipment, online dietary supplement store and social media accounts, which are followed by millions of users.

In past legal disputes over account ownership, social media companies have left it up to the courts and the parties involved to resolve it. But in this case, X is intervening, objecting to X’s Jones and Infowars accounts being part of the sale.

“Elon Musk, without a doubt, is a hero,” Jones said on a recent episode of his Infowars showpraising X’s billionaire owner for intervening in his case.

That is something notable for legal experts on social networks.

“This is the first time I’ve seen a social media platform argue in court that no one can transfer ownership during a dispute over who owns an account because they’ll just shut it down,” said Toby Butterfield, who teaches social media law at the Columbia University Law School.

In a filing this week in Texas bankruptcy court, attorneys for Jones or FSS [Free Speech Systems ] that it remains on platform

That’s because X says its terms of service make clear that accounts cannot be sold and are ultimately owned by Technology companies typically enforce those terms quietly and do not intervene in public legal battles, said Eric Goldman, associate dean and professor of technology law at Santa Clara University School of Law.

“Social media services approach this issue cautiously because they want to encourage their users to invest heavily in their accounts,” Goldman said. “If users fear that services may undo those investments by reclaiming or exercising control over the username, active users will be reluctant to make the desired investments.”

Both experts said two things may be true at the same time: Musk may be getting involved because of his political leanings and to set legal precedent in a high-profile case involving well-known X accounts.

“It’s not that the law has changed here. It’s just that Elon Musk as owner and the people who run X are flexing their muscle in a very new and different way,” Butterfield said.

By intervening in the case, X is further demonstrating how the platform is ultimately Musk’s domain, where he can do as he pleases. Musk has shown a willingness to take over accounts in the past, threatening NPR after the public broadcaster stopped posting to his account and seizing the username @America for his political action committee that supported President-elect Donald Trump during the Campaign.

“What conceivable motivation does a company have to destroy the value in its users’ accounts and implicitly threaten all other users?” Butterfield said. “It becomes an individual person’s playground, rather than a functional marketplace of ideas.”