Alex Jones bankruptcy raises questions over social media account ownership

The ongoing bankruptcy proceedings of Alex Jones, the founder of Infowars, have catalysed a complex legal discussion regarding the ownership of social media accounts, particularly in the context of digital assets. A US bankruptcy judge, Christopher Lopez, is set to evaluate the fate of Jones’s accounts on X, formerly known as Twitter, as his trustee seeks to liquidate assets to cover nearly $1.5 billion in damages owed to families of the Sandy Hook school shooting victims.

At the centre of this unfolding drama is Jones’s claim to the ownership of four X accounts, which collectively have close to four million followers. Elon Musk’s legal team has interjected into the proceedings by asserting their belief that these accounts do not belong to Jones, but instead are owned by X. X contends that the trustee lacks the authority to sell or transfer accounts it claims it owns.

The significance of this case reaches far beyond Jones’s financial troubles; it has implications for how ownership of social media accounts is defined legally. X’s legal counsel argues that the terms of service shared by users with the platform clarify its ownership of accounts and access rights. Jones, who has faced a significant financial judgement for his controversial past statements regarding Sandy Hook, finds himself in an unusual position where the ownership of his digital presence hinges on a legal definition of account ownership and content rights.

The terms of service at X stipulate that users retain ownership of the content they generate while agreeing to grant the platform a broad license to use that content. According to Daniel Fletcher, a UK-based intellectual property lawyer, the ownership attributed to a user extends specifically to the content shared, but, he notes, this is co-shared with X, creating a murky legal landscape regarding account ownership.

Adam Weissman, another intellectual property lawyer, corroborates that social media platforms usually retain significant control over user accounts and specify their rights to modify or deactivate them. This lack of clarity in X’s terms could serve as a critical component in the ongoing dispute. Weissman points out that while users have rights over the content they produce, there is ambiguity over the ownership of the accounts themselves. Previous discussions in the industry regarding ownership predominantly focused on corporate social media accounts, making the assertion by X that it owns user accounts a potential precedent in legal interpretations.

The implications of this case may extend beyond Jones and affect how users interact with social media platforms. If a ruling favours X, it could redefine digital asset ownership, marking a shift in the relationship between users and the platforms they use. Weissman mentions potential challenges in determining what constitutes an account and its individual components, raising questions about the rights to followers, information, and content linked to accounts.

Source: Noah Wire Services