X Corp. v. Masjoody, 2025 BCCA 89
According to X, the platform’s terms of service apply to just about any lawsuit brought by someone with an X account. But BC’s courts don’t seem to agree.
A bit of context: Dr. Masood Masjoody sued X in BC over tweets he says are defamatory. According to X, he should have sued in California. The company relied on its terms of service, which say that any disputes related to the terms or X’s services need to be litigated in San Francisco.
The ruling: The BC Court of Appeal (agreeing with the BC Supreme Court), said X’s terms of service don’t cover Dr. Masjoody’s defamation claim.
Dr. Masjoody’s claim is not a complaint about what content he has been exposed to on X. It is, rather, a complaint about what the general public can read about him on X, and the impact of that content on his reputation and security. That does not arise from his use of or access to X’s services as a member so as to fall within the contract.
Para 26
X also relied on another part of the contract:
[X is not liable for damages or intangible losses resulting from] any conduct or content of any third party … including without limitation, any defamatory, offensive, or illegal conduct of other users or third parties.
But the Court saw two reasons not to let this language block Dr. Masjoody’s claim.
- The limitation only applies to third party conduct. Since Dr. Masjoody alleges that X directly defamed him by facilitating, maintaining, and even encouraging the allegedly defamatory posts, the alleged misconduct falls outside the limitation.
- And the limitation only covers liability for damages. Since Dr. Masjoody wants an order forcing X to take the posts down, the remedy also falls outside the limitation.
Big picture: This one’s a bit like the case that blew up in Disney’s face last summer — where the company argued that a man couldn’t sue over his wife’s death because he signed up for an online Disney account. If the X case is any indication, Disney made the right call backing away from that argument after facing public backlash. Judges probably wouldn’t have liked it either.