to leave a comment.
▲ David Schwartz, X, XRP/ChatGPT generated image
David Schwartz, Ripple's honorary Chief Technology Officer, publicly defended X's (formerly Twitter) arguments in the latest lawsuit surrounding Elon Musk's X. After a court ruled that a platform cannot be held responsible for the content of user posts merely due to its recommendation algorithm, Schwartz argued that the expanded theory of algorithm liability conflicts with the principle of freedom of expression.
According to Coingape on May 25 (local time), Schwartz made his remarks after a Texas federal court accepted X's Section 230 immunity claim in the case of Taaddio-Waite v. X. The lawsuit alleged that X failed to remove harmful content, amplified such content through its algorithm, and downranked the plaintiff's posts in exposure.
Schwartz stated on X, "The theory that holding someone liable for the content of speech merely because they amplified or recommended it is an entirely new legal doctrine concerning speech liability, and a new theory of speech liability prohibited by the First Amendment." He viewed the core of this case as whether the amplification of posts through recommendation algorithms could be considered platform liability.
The plaintiff argued that X should be held responsible for promoting graphic posts by anonymous users through its recommendation system. However, Judge Ray ruled that the platform's actions continue to be protected under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. The court found that "Section 230 clearly bars Taaddio-Waite's claims against X" and disagreed with the argument that algorithmic amplification changes the legal determination.
The court based its decision on the fact that the recommendations provided by X did not add to the substantive content of the original posts. It also pointed out that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate how X's algorithm encouraged or contributed to the composition of the post's message, merely claiming that the algorithm facilitated its spread immediately after posting.
The ruling viewed algorithmic recommendations as an act similar to the editorial choices of a traditional publisher. Just like a publisher's decision on where to place an article for better visibility, the platform's recommendations cannot be seen as creating new content itself.
The plaintiff also claimed breach of contract, stating that X blocked their posts despite being a paid member. However, the court ruled that Section 230 immunity also applies to breach of contract claims. This decision was submitted in the form of a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas in April 2026, and remains subject to review by Judge Reed O'Connor.
Coingape reported that this ruling contributed to a positive atmosphere surrounding Musk's projects. However, in a separate case, Musk lost a lawsuit demanding $134 billion in damages against OpenAI, and the court did not accept that claim.
*Disclaimer: This article is for investment reference only, and we are not responsible for any investment losses based on it. The content should be interpreted for informational purposes only.*
Newsletter
Get key news delivered to your email every morning