In a plot twist that would make a screenwriter blush, X is now fighting to protect its users' anonymity against the far-right influencers and accused human traffickers Andrew and Tristan Tate, who are trying to unmask their online critics. The Tate brothers filed suit last year against the owners of over a dozen social media accounts - several pseudonymous - claiming a “Conspiratorial Plot” to defame them. After a Florida court ruled they couldn't sue unidentified defendants, they amended their complaint against known users and demanded X disclose the anonymous account holders. Now, in a May 11th response, X has objected, arguing that the request puts First Amendment rights in serious jeopardy.
“The United States Supreme Court has long recognized that the right to speak anonymously on the internet, including via social media platforms, is protected,” X's complaint states. While protections aren't absolute, the suit hasn't met the First Amendment safeguards required to prevent chilling effects that “deter participation in the marketplace of ideas out of fear they could be unmasked for expressing potentially unpopular opinions.” The accounts in question tracked legal actions against Andrew Tate - a self-professed misogynist accused of rape and human trafficking in the UK and Romania - and his brother Tristan. The pair deny all accusations. In their original complaint, the Tates claim defamatory statements included calling Andrew “a compulsive liar” and a “groomer.” X and a lawyer for the Tate brothers did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
This legal battle pits various MAGA-aligned factions against each other. The Tates were brought back to the US in 2025 reportedly with help from the Trump administration. X owner Elon Musk - occasional Trump ally - boosted their online presence by reinstating Tate's Twitter account in 2022. Musk has positioned himself as a “free speech absolutist” while taking a harsh stance on “doxing.” Tate's demands to reveal users' info to stop their speech might look like abandoning both principles at once.
Nathan Pope, a creator known as Gadget online, was named by pseudonym in the initial complaint but directly in an amended one. “I was particularly concerned by the recent efforts to unmask anonymous defendants, especially given the Tates’ own public comments about using courts against critics and sharing identities online,” Pope told The Verge. “That raises broader concerns about harassment and the chilling effect on online speech.”
“The right to speak anonymously is part of the First Amendment, and the First Amendment applies to the Internet,” said Cathy Gellis, an internet law attorney. “Courts have put these two ideas together to protect anonymous speakers from being unmasked.” Practically, it's tough because anonymous speakers often can't afford legal counsel quickly. “Sometimes platforms can quash discovery instruments to protect user communities, but it's not always feasible,” Gellis added. Pope noted defending against the Tates' claims has “come at a significant financial cost,” with defendants crowdfunding legal support. “I’m pleased that X has chosen to challenge these efforts,” he said.