Last month, X Corp., formerly and more famously known as Twitter (“X/Twitter”), filed a limited objection in the Texas federal court overseeing the bankruptcy case of Alex Jones involving the liquidation of his assets, including the right-wing “news” website Infowars. The underlying action involves, in part, the propriety of a bid awarded to the satirical news site The Onion for the purchase of certain Infowars assets. X/Twitter’s participation in the action was prompted by the proposed sale or other purported transfer of any Alex Jones or Infowars-associated accounts maintained on the X/Twitter platform.

X/Twitter’s limited objection seeks to clarify and assert its ownership interests in all accounts maintained on its social media platform, including the ones controlled by Alex Jones and Infowars subject to the asset sale with The Onion. According to X/Twitter, its terms of service make clear that accounts on the social media platform are X/Twitter’s “exclusive property”. See X Terms of Service:

“All right, title, and interest in and to the Services (excluding Content provided by users) are and will remain our and our licensors' exclusive property.”

In contrast to X/Twitter’s claimed ownership of the accounts on its platform, X/Twitter squarely acknowledges that account holders or others own the content they submit, post, or display through the platform. But since X/Twitter claims it is the rightful owner of certain social media assets subject to the proposed asset sale, it argues that such portions of the sale or transfer cannot occur without X/Twitter’s consent (which it withholds).

Other social media platforms rely on similar language in their terms of use, which are binding on all users, and which could reasonably be used as a basis for the platform to claim an ownership interest in any given account. For example:

• Facebook: Facebook users are required to agree not to “transfer your account to anyone else (without [Facebook’s] permission)” and “may not sell, license, or purchase any data obtained from [Facebook] or [Facebook’s] services …”
• Instagram: Instagram’s terms more explicitly state, “You can’t sell, license, or purchase any account or data obtained from [Instagram] or [Instagram’s] Service. This includes attempts to buy, sell, or transfer any aspect of your account (including your username); …” (emphasis added).
• TikTok: TikTok’s terms state, “You may not: … distribute, license, transfer, or sell, in whole or in part, any of the Services or any derivative works thereof”.

Despite this ownership position taken by social media companies, as set forth in their respective terms of use and even more explicitly in X/Twitter’s recent filing at the federal bankruptcy court in Texas, the fact remains that these types of social media asset transfers occur. Often included in the sale of a business or certain of its assets are social media accounts or “handles” that are packaged in the deal along with other more freely transferable brand assets like trademark registrations and domain names.

According to X/Twitter, a sale or transfer of a social media account is null and void because the platform, rather than the individual user, is the rightful owner. Buyers beware. Even though these types of transfers may occur pursuant to private agreements, at least X/Twitter claims such transfers are in violation of its terms of use.