Court and agency docket

TSE 2026 election — recommendation-system exclusion

Tribunal Superior Eleitoral (electoral law + open-source filter)

Brazilian electoral law requires recommendation systems to exclude channels reported to the Electoral Court. X implemented this as Brazil2026ElectionFilter in the public For You code on 14 August 2026. TSE has also been pushing broader 2026 platform-compliance plans.

X Corp. petition of a B.C. Intimate Images Protection Act order

Supreme Court of British Columbia (from B.C. Civil Resolution Tribunal)

The B.C. Civil Resolution Tribunal ordered X to take down a non-consensual intimate image and later imposed a $100,000 penalty after X geo-blocked the post in Canada instead of deleting it worldwide. X petitioned the B.C. Supreme Court in November 2025 to quash the global-takedown penalty. The Attorney General of B.C. joined to defend the statute. No later public disposition was found as of this compilation.

OPC investigation of X Corp. and xAI (Grok image generation)

Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (Federal Court available next)

The Privacy Commissioner found X and xAI breached PIPEDA by launching Grok image generation without adequate safeguards against sexualized deepfakes. The office is monitoring remediation. If unsatisfied it can take the matter to the Federal Court — the current statute does not give the OPC its own fines or binding orders.

Online Streaming Act (C-11) — Federal Court of Appeal challenges

Federal Court of Appeal; CRTC

C-11 brought online streaming under the Broadcasting Act. Industry groups (including MPA–Canada) challenged CRTC contribution orders. The Federal Court of Appeal agreed to hear the case and partially stayed payments. On 21 May 2026 the CRTC raised contribution levels again. This file is about broadcasting levies and discoverability, not a post-by-post X speech filter — included because C-11’s social-media reach was the live Canadian speech-regulation fight for years.

DSA illegal-content orders (Germany / EU)

National courts + EU Digital Services Coordinator path

Germany sits inside the EU DSA. Member-state authorities can issue orders to act against illegal content; X’s latest global table rolls those into the EU row (3,831 requests, 90.42% actioned). Historic NetzDG court withholdings (e.g. Berlin regional court) remain the older template.

X Corp v Union of India — Sahyog portal (WP 7405/2025)

High Court of Karnataka; Supreme Court appeal announced

X argued MeitY’s Sahyog portal used IT Act s 79(3)(b) to dodge the stricter s 69A blocking procedure from Shreya Singhal. On 24 September 2025 the Karnataka High Court upheld Sahyog and said a foreign company cannot claim Article 19 protections. X said it would appeal to the Supreme Court of India.

Outcome. Lost at the High Court. Appeal to the Supreme Court announced.

MIC designation of X under the Information Distribution Platform Act

Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications (総務省)

MIC designated X a large specified telecommunications provider on 30 April 2025. X must run a Japanese rights-infringement window, decide deletion requests within 7 days, staff an infringement-investigation role, and publish an annual Article 28 compliance report. Failure to follow a ministerial correction order can carry a fine of up to ¥100 million. This is the private-party honor/privacy track — not the 69k government crime-ad demand pile.

Constitutional Court challenge to 126 account blocks

Turkish Constitutional Court

X filed an individual application against a BTK order to block 126 accounts inside Turkey. In August 2026 X said that challenge was still pending after a further Istanbul-court order against a presidential-candidacy account of Ekrem İmamoğlu. Blocked accounts remain visible outside Turkey.

Online Safety Act 2023 — illegal-content and child-safety duties

Ofcom (judicial review in the High Court)

The Act is in force. X’s own UK page lists 19 illegal-content categories it geo-restricts and 7 child-harmful categories it restricts from minors. Ofcom can fine up to 10% of qualifying worldwide revenue or apply to court to block a service. There is still no published X-vs-Ofcom merits judgment on a specific takedown notice.

Ofcom investigation of X — Grok sexualised imagery

Ofcom (provisional decision, then possible High Court review)

Ofcom opened a formal investigation into whether X assessed and mitigated the risk of Grok-generated sexual deepfakes of real people — including children — spreading on the service, and whether it took them down quickly. On 3 February 2026 Ofcom said it is gathering evidence under binding information notices, working with the ICO, and that standalone chatbot image-creation sits partly outside the Act. No findings and no provisional decision yet.

ICO investigation of X and xAI — Grok personal-data processing

Information Commissioner’s Office (UK GDPR / DPA 2018)

The ICO opened formal investigations into X Internet Unlimited Company and X.AI LLC over processing of personal data in Grok and its potential to produce harmful sexualised image and video content. Parallel to Ofcom, not a speech-ranking case. No findings yet.

Ofcom Category 1 designation of X

Ofcom Register of Categorised Services

Ofcom listed X (X Internet Unlimited Company) as a Category 1 social media service. Category 1 adds duties on user empowerment, identity verification, news-publisher and journalistic content, content of democratic importance, and freedom-of-expression assessments — on top of the illegal-content and child-safety codes already in force. Additional-duties codes were out for consultation when the register landed.