X has claimed that a criminal investigation launched against it by French authorities is politically motivated, alleging that the inquiry threatens both user privacy and freedom of speech.
Earlier this month, it was reported that French prosecutors had escalated a preliminary investigation into the company, formerly known as Twitter, and its owner. Police are now legally permitted to search company premises, monitor employee devices, and summon X executives for questioning. If such summons are ignored, a judge may issue arrest warrants under French law.
The case focuses on allegations that the company’s algorithm may be biased or manipulated and that data may have been extracted in a manner deemed unlawful under French or EU law.
In a statement issued yesterday, the company said the probe “egregiously undermines X’s fundamental right to due process” and accused French officials of distorting the law to serve political aims. The investigation relates to allegations of algorithmic bias and so-called “fraudulent data extraction,” which X denies.
The platform said it had been formally classified as an “organised gang” for the purposes of the investigation, a legal designation it claims enables authorities to exercise enhanced police powers, including wiretapping the personal devices of X staff, conducting searches, and issuing legal summons.
According to X, it has not been informed of any specific charges but believes the nature of the investigation, the scope of the demands made by police, and the people chosen to evaluate its systems indicate political bias rather than a neutral legal process.
French authorities have reportedly requested real-time access to the platform’s recommendation algorithm and user post data, allowing a team of outside experts to examine how the system operates. X raised concerns that some of the individuals involved in that process have previously expressed open opposition to the platform, casting doubt on the impartiality of their involvement.
The company stated that it had refused to comply with the data access requests, citing its legal rights under existing frameworks and arguing that the request amounted to a misuse of investigative power.
“For these reasons, X has not acceded to the French authorities’ demands, as we have a legal right to do,” the company said.
“This is not a decision that X takes lightly. However, in this case, the facts speak for themselves.”
It added that the platform remained committed to safeguarding its legal position and that it viewed the investigation as an attempt to stifle digital free speech.
“X is committed to defending its fundamental rights, protecting user data and resisting political censorship,” it said.
Under France’s legal system, labelling a subject as an “organised gang” allows for expanded surveillance and enforcement tools typically reserved for serious criminal organisations, including drug trafficking and mafia groups.
X claims that applying this label to a digital platform over an algorithm transparency dispute is disproportionate and politically motivated. It also claims that the inclusion of critics in the review process further undermines the neutrality of the investigation.
The company has repeatedly argued that calls for transparency should not override platform security or user confidentiality and has maintained that it complies with its legal obligations under international and domestic regulations.
X was rebranded from Twitter in 2023 following its acquisition by Elon Musk. Since the rebrand, the platform has faced repeated scrutiny from EU and national regulators, particularly under the provisions of the Digital Services Act, which came into force across the EU in 2024.
The Act places new obligations on large online platforms to be more transparent about how algorithms operate, how content is moderated, and how user data is handled. Regulators are empowered to investigate non-compliance and can issue substantial fines or other penalties.
This is not the first time X has pushed back against such scrutiny. The platform has previously resisted what it describes as overreach by European officials, particularly when investigations include access to proprietary technology or the internal workings of sites’ algorithms.