Data access for researchers: court lifts injunction against X
The Berlin Regional Court had forced X to give researchers access to data on the platform, but has now overturned this order.
At least in this one case, Elon Musk's platform did not have to hand over any data.
(Image: kovop/Shutterstock.com)
The legal dispute between the organization Democracy Reporting International (DRI) and the short message service X (formerly Twitter) over access to data for research purposes has ended like the Hornberg shooting: After the oral hearing, the Berlin Regional Court overturned the preliminary injunction initially issued against X. In this specific case, X no longer has to give the organization access to data. DRI nevertheless considers this a partial success (case no. 41 O 140/25 eV).
The court ruled after the hearing in May that the application for a temporary injunction was admissible but not justified. The judges stated in the now published reasons for the ruling that DRI could invoke the Digital Services Act (DSA) and demand access to the platform's data. However, the urgency required for a preliminary injunction was not justified.
Dispute over research data
The dispute has been simmering for over a year. In April 2024, DRI requested access to all publicly available data on X for an investigation into political discourse on social media platforms in the run-up to elections in EU member states. In doing so, DRI invoked the Digital Services Act. The DSA stipulates that so-called very large online platforms – including X – must provide API access to data for research purposes.
X apparently did not comply immediately, but instead repeatedly asked questions and thus further delayed a decision. DRI then gave the social network an ultimatum until July 1, 2024 and threatened to lodge a complaint under the DSA. After multiple delays by X, DRI submitted a second request for data access to research the federal election in January 2025 and asked for a decision within one week.
When X refused to decide even after a further deadline was set, DRI, with the support of the Gesellschaft fĂĽr Freiheitsrechte (GFF), applied to the Berlin Regional Court for a temporary injunction. The court granted this on February 6 and issued an injunction without hearing X, ordering the platform to grant the researchers unrestricted access to all of X's publicly available data.
Risk of bias
As expected, X filed an appeal against this decision. At the same time, the company filed an application for recusal against the judge who issued the preliminary injunction. The judge had spent three months of his legal clerkship as an employee of GFF. The Berlin Regional Court saw sufficient reason to doubt the impartiality of the chamber and removed the judge from the case.
DRI has not yet received any data. For the main hearing in May, the organization then applied for the case to be declared closed and for costs to be imposed on X. After all, the general election had already taken place and the specific project was therefore over. The fact that DRI and GFF wanted to avoid an adverse decision in the case may also have played a role.
X applied for the interim injunction to be lifted. On the one hand, the Berlin Regional Court did not have international jurisdiction, and on the other hand, issuing a preliminary injunction without a hearing violated the principle of equality of arms in court. There was also a lack of urgency.
Videos by heise
Court lifts injunction
The Regional Court dismissed DRI's new application and lifted the preliminary injunction. DRI and GFF are to bear the costs. The court thus essentially followed X's application. Although the original application was admissible, the court did not consider it to be sufficiently substantiated. DRI had filed the application so late that the urgency required for an injunction could no longer be assumed.
DRI and GFF nevertheless consider the decision to be a partial success. Although there is no longer talk of a "strong signal for the protection of fundamental rights", the organizations see the confirmed jurisdiction of a German court as progress. This means that it is not necessary to file a lawsuit at X's European headquarters in Ireland.
The decision "confirms that researchers can turn to their national courts if platforms refuse access to data or make it difficult to research data," said DRI CEO Michael Meyer-Resende.
DRI is a non-profit organization based in Berlin. In addition to research and analysis, it is also directly involved in strengthening democratic structures in various countries. In addition to some European countries, these include numerous countries in Asia and Africa, including Libya, Congo and Sri Lanka.
The organization receives significant funding from the German government and the EU. In its last published annual report, DRI reported income of just under 6.7 million euros for 2023. Of this, 3.2 million euros came from the Federal Foreign Office, 1.8 million euros from the EU and 475,000 euros from the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The Mercator Foundation contributed a further 530,000 million euros.
(vbr)
