Social-media giant X, formerly known as Twitter, has taken a High Court challenge against Ireland’s media watchdog, Coimisiún na Meán, questioning the lawfulness of how the commission investigates and handles information arising from user complaints regarding Elon Musk’s company.
At the High Court on Wednesday, X’s lawyers applied for a stay relating to the commission’s October 2025 decision to pass information relating to complaints to the commission’s internal “supervisory” team for possible future investigation, regarding the internal user-complaints system at X.
X submits that the commission could not legally refer information garnered from complaints to the commission’s “platform supervision team” if those complaints were already concluded, undetermined or if information contained in specific complaints could be used for broader, future systemic investigations.
Neil Steen SC, for X, submitted that the commission cannot continue to investigate a formal, official investigation after its conclusion and that both X and any complainant were entitled to be informed in advance of any proposed actions.
READ MORE
Mr Steen said the commission was attempting to deploy a “semantic trick”, in that if it had concluded a “specific” complaint investigation it still retained the information therein to look into any “systemic” issues in the future.
It is submitted in court papers by X that the commission had “no provision which allows a delegate to delegate their delegated powers to another delegate [the platform supervision team]” for future use.
Mr Steen said X regularly took “unilateral” removal action on material posted on its site through “proactive steps on many, many” cases, such as “child exploitation”, which it is required to do by its own regulatory policies.
Counsel said the commission must carry out the terms of what it is investigating in writing and that all parties must be informed in advance of any outcome of what is proposed to be done by the commission.
Mr Steen said the concern of X was whether an investigation into a complaint or any appeal could still be internally investigated by the commission’s supervisory team without it being formally communicated to the parties involved.
Mr Steen said the commission was, by passing any specific complaint information to the supervisory team, creating a situation that could lead to a “residual possibility” of future investigations, though that specific matter could be concluded.
Mr Steen said complainants and X in any matter were both “entitled” to an outcome instead of the commission “kicking the can down the road without notification” on any possible purported breaches.
Counsel said that if the stay on investigation was not granted by the court, the commission’s parameters of investigation would be “entirely unclear”.
He said it was a matter for the court to decide the question of “a risk of injustice or harm” in the matter.
Counsel said X was a “significant operation” that wanted to comply with regulations but the commission had employed a referral to its supervisory team that was, under law, “new territory for everyone concerned”.
Counsel said that if a stay was granted it would “simply prevent the commission from polluting its own” in carrying out its work without clarity from the court.
David Fennelly SC, for the commission, said X was attempting to undermine the work of the watchdog’s important role in prima facie cases that had implications across the European Union.
He said the information regarding complaints had already been transferred to the supervisory team so it could investigate how specific cases fed into a “broader picture” regarding investigating online complaint systems.
Mr Justice Cian Ferriter said he would deliver his decision on the stay application next week.
