Court makes disclosure orders in favour of company and executives allegedly defamed by X accounts

High Court reporters

X, formerly Twitter, has been directed by the High Court to provide details about four accounts on its platform to a social media service and two of its founders.

On Friday, Mr Justice Mark Sanfey was told X was neither consenting nor objecting to the disclosure orders being granted.

The orders were made in favour of Switzerland-based Vinivia AG, its chief executive Steffan Graff and chief financial officer Marcello Genovese, who claim the X accounts are being used to wage a malicious smear campaign against them.

They claim that in the weeks after the firm's app was launched last April, the four accounts in question were set up on X.

The plaintiffs, represented by Peter Shanley BL, claim accounts have posted statements about his clients which are "defamatory and false".

They also allege that the posts, which include photographs and personal information about Mr Genovese and Mr Graff, are in breach of their GDPR rights.

The plaintiffs claim they have "suffered significant reputational damage" because of the posts, and further claim the posts are impacting on the company's business and ability to attract further investment.

They do not know the identity of those behind the accounts, who they want to sue for damages over the alleged defamation.

Earlier this week, the plaintiffs secured permission to seek and order from the Court directing Irish-based Twitter International Unlimited Company, X's Irish-based subsidiary which provides the X service to all users within Europe, to give them details about the holders of certain accounts.

The order, known as a Norwich Pharmacal Order, requires X to provide the plaintiffs with all the information it has in its possession relating to the identities of anyone who created or controls the accounts.

On Friday, Mr Shanley said Twitter had agreed to neither object to nor consent to the disclosure orders sought following discussions between the parties.

The plaintiffs have also agreed to pay the respondent's legal costs, counsel added.

Mr Justice Sanfey welcomed the speed at which the matter had been agreed between the parties.