The High Court has instructed X, the social media company previously recognised as Twitter, to disclose details about four accounts hosted on its platform to a social media service along with its two founders. Judge Mark Sanfey was informed on Friday that X is neither authorising nor opposing the granting of these disclosure orders.
The orders were issued on behalf of Vinivia AG, a company based in Switzerland, along with its CEO Steffan Graff and CFO Marcello Genovese. They allege that the X accounts are participating in a harmful defamation campaign against them. They suggest that once the firm’s application was initiated last April, four accounts were established on X.
The claimants, who are defended by Peter Shanley BL, assert that the accounts have published unfounded and defamatory remarks about his clients. They also claim the posts—containing photographs and private information about Mr Genovese and Mr Graff—are infringing on their General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) rights.
The plaintiffs maintain that the alleged libellous posts purport they are engaged in “frauds and scams” and “financial misconduct”, and say that the firm is a “shady company”. The posts have allegedly labelled the plaintiffs as “criminals”, “thugs”, accused them of “money laundering”, and also defamed one plaintiff by calling them “a Nazi”.
The plaintiffs argue that these posts have inflicted substantial reputational harm. They add that they are not only impacting the company’s reputation but also its business operations and potential to attract further investment.
The identities of the account owners, who the plaintiffs wish to sue for damages due to supposed defamation, remain unknown. Earlier this week, the plaintiffs managed to get approval to request a court order directing Twitter International Unlimited Company, X’s Irish-based subsidiary which provides service to all the European users, to disclose details of the @VinivialInsider, @MayouKnow249, @FightTheScam, and @TheSaintofCA account holders.
The directive, often referred to as a Norwich Pharmacal Order, necessitates that X must disclose all pertinent information in its custodianship regarding the identities of individuals who established or manage the accounts, to the plaintiffs. Mr Shanley articulated on Friday that following negotiations, Twitter consented to neither dispute nor approve the demands for disclosure orders. Furthermore, the plaintiffs have chosen to settle the defendant’s law-related expenses, the counsel asserted. The rapidity with which resolutions have been reached by the respective parties was appreciated by Mr Justice Sanfey, who flagged that commonly, these proceedings often endure far longer.