# X’s Updated Terms of Service: Legal Consequences and the Significance of the Northern District of Texas
Elon Musk’s social media platform, X (previously recognized as Twitter), has recently revised its [terms of service](https://x.com/en/tos) to mandate that user lawsuits be filed exclusively in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. This alteration has generated considerable attention, particularly as Judge Reed O’Connor, a stakeholder in Tesla, is presently overseeing a lawsuit involving X. The new terms, scheduled to take effect on November 15, 2024, have ignited conversations about the legal and ethical ramifications of this venue choice, especially considering X’s headquarters are not situated in the Northern District.
## Notable Revisions in X’s Terms of Service
The modified terms of service stipulate that any conflicts concerning the platform must be litigated solely in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas or in state courts located in Tarrant County, Texas. Users are required to agree to the jurisdiction of these courts and relinquish any objections based on the forum’s inconvenience. This marks a significant departure from the former terms, which mandated that disputes be addressed in courts in San Francisco, California.
Although X has recently relocated its headquarters from San Francisco to Texas, the new headquarters are based in Bastrop County, which falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, rather than the Northern District. This geographical disconnect has prompted inquiries regarding the justification for this venue selection.
## Legal Precedents and Validity of Forum-Selection Clauses
Vanderbilt Law School Professor Brian Fitzpatrick noted that forum-selection clauses, like the one included in X’s revised terms, are typically enforceable. “There might be an argument that there was no consent to the new terms, but if you have to click on something at some point acknowledging you read the new terms, consent will probably be found,” Fitzpatrick explained to *Ars Technica*.
Should a user try to sue X in a different jurisdiction, the case would likely be dismissed or shifted to the Northern District of Texas. Fitzpatrick referenced the Supreme Court case *Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute* as a vital precedent. In that situation, the Court upheld a forum-selection clause requiring disputes to be resolved in Florida, even though the plaintiffs resided in Washington state. The ruling highlighted that such clauses are subject to judicial evaluation for “fundamental fairness,” meaning they cannot be designed to deter legitimate claims or be obtained through deceit.
Nonetheless, Fitzpatrick pointed out that there could be arguments questioning X’s terms’ enforceability. For instance, if the forum has no connection to either party or if the terms impose an undue burden on users—like necessitating travel to Texas for minor claims—there may be grounds to argue the terms are unconscionable. However, such arguments are generally challenging to win in court.
## Judge Reed O’Connor and the Media Matters Case
The selection of the Northern District of Texas as the venue for lawsuits involving X is notably significant because Judge Reed O’Connor, a Tesla shareholder, is currently overseeing a lawsuit filed by X against the nonprofit Media Matters for America. The lawsuit arises from Media Matters’ investigation, which disclosed that advertisements from major corporations such as Apple and IBM were placed next to pro-Nazi content on X.
Media Matters contended that Judge O’Connor should recuse himself from the proceedings due to his financial ties to Tesla, a company closely linked to X’s owner, Elon Musk. They argued that owning Tesla stock poses a conflict of interest, as the success of Tesla is heavily reliant on Musk’s reputation and management. Nonetheless, O’Connor declined to recuse himself and dismissed Media Matters’ assertion that his court lacked jurisdiction over the matter.
Recent financial disclosures indicate that O’Connor continued to own Tesla stock as of early 2024, with his holdings valued between $15,001 and $50,000. Despite this, O’Connor has maintained his role in the case, raising concerns regarding judicial ethics and neutrality.
## Ethical Issues and the Importance of Venue Selection
The decision to funnel lawsuits to the Northern District of Texas has elicited worries about whether X is attempting to “stack the deck” in its favor by opting for a court with a conservative leaning. The Northern District is recognized for having a higher number of Republican-appointed judges compared to the Western District, where X’s headquarters are situated. This has prompted some legal professionals to scrutinize the ethics surrounding X’s choice of venue.
Georgetown Law Professor Steve Vladeck expressed doubt regarding the fairness of X’s terms, especially given the lack of any connection between the Northern District and X’s operations. “For X to claim we want all of our litigation to occur in a forum that may have no links to where we’re based, or to where plaintiffs are from, contradicts the federal system’s preference for convenience,” Vladeck articulated to *NPR*.
