Elon Musk's X changes its terms of service to steer user lawsuits towards a Texas court instead of California. Which is fine. Just happens to be a completely different Texas court district to where X is actually headquartered

X, formerly known (and still colloquially referred to) as Twitter, has recently moved its headquarters from San Francisco to Texas. This mirrors a 2021 move from California to Texas for one of Elon Musk's other companies, Tesla, and has since resulted in Musk appearing in public in many different cowboy hats.

Now X has updated its terms of service to push disputes aimed towards the company to the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas (via Ars Technica). This has been seen as an unusual move, as while it's not uncommon for companies to pick a preferred forum for legal disputes, X is located in Texas' Western District.

According to The Guardian, the Western District has far fewer Republican-appointed judges than the Northern District, and as such has become a "favored destination" for conservative activists and business groups.

The Northern District court has already been the venue for X-related lawsuits, including an ongoing case against Media Matters for America, related to its research involving ads on the platform being placed next to pro-Nazi content. The case is currently being heard by US District Judge Reed O' Conner, who has rejected a motion to recuse himself from the case because of his previous purchase of Tesla stock in 2022, valued between $15,001 and $50,000.

Media Matters argued that Tesla should be disclosed as an "interested party" in the case because of Musk's association with the company. O'Conner ruled that (PDF warning):

"Defendants failed to show facts that X's alleged connection to Tesla meets this [financial interest] standard. Instead, it appears Defendants seek to force a backdoor recusal through their Motion to Compel. Gamesmanship of this sort is inappropriate and contrary to the rules of the Northern District of Texas."

Still, there's no guarantee that cases against X will end up in front of O'Conner. As Georgetown Law Professor Steve Vladeck confirmed on the platform:

"I *don't* read these terms to mean that every case will end up before Judge O'Connor, specifically. The only place in the Northern District where you're guaranteed to draw O'Connor is Wichita Falls. Elsewhere in the district, you could draw other judges."

As for the legal legitimacy of steering disgruntled users towards a specific location for legal action, it appears there's plenty of precedent for doing so, with little potential recourse. Speaking to Ars Technica, Vanderbilt Law School Professor Brian Fitzpatrick said:

"If the forum has no connection to either party and there is no other good faith reason for picking the forum, there might be an argument the terms are unconscionable...likewise, if you are poor and the dispute small, there might be an argument that it is unconscionable to make you travel to Texas to sue. But... my understanding is that unconscionability is still a very disfavored doctrine."

Musk has increasingly become involved in conservative causes in recent years, appearing at Trump rallies and becoming a major financial supporter of the Trump campaign in the runup to the November 5 presidential election.

Judge Reed O'Conner was an appointee of the Bush administration, and in recent years has blocked Biden administration policies on gun control, LGBTQ+ rights, and the Affordable Care Act.

If all this talk of Texas court districts sounds strangely familiar, it's worth noting that the Western District has been the location of a whole bunch of IP infringement cases, notably against Intel by a company it called: "a shell company that abuses our patent system to extract billions of dollars from Intel, an American manufacturer and innovator."