Dutch court orders X to grant user information about why he was shadowbanned

The Amsterdam Court of Appeal has ruled that the social media platform X must grant a shadowbanned user access to the personal data it holds on him.

Dutch entrepreneur and privacy expert Danny Mekić reshared a post on X in October 2023, criticizing the European Union’s (EU) plans to tackle child sexual abuse online. The post included the term “child pornography,” the NL Times reports.

Soon after, Mekić's account became invisible to other users – or shadowbanned. He didn’t receive any notification from the platform, nor did it provide a clear explanation when he requested one.

Mekić then brought the case before the courts. In 2024, the court ruled that X is required to give him access to information held about him, and pay a penalty of €4,000 ($4,714) per day for non-compliance.

X challenged the order, citing the risks of disclosing confidential business information. The platform’s internal scoring system, known as Guano Notes, has become the central argument in X’s objections.

However, the court ruled that X doesn’t need to reveal all the requested information, such as detailed timestamps showing when posts are flagged or reviewed.

Elon Musk, who positions himself as a free-speech absolutist, took over X (formerly Twitter) in 2023. However, the number of banned accounts sharply increased during the first months of Musk’s rule.

Users have also complained about shadowbanning, or receiving the “temporary label” that restricts their visibility without the platform providing a clear explanation.

The shadowbanning appears to encompass a wide range of restrictions, from downranking posts and hiding responses to threads to being banned from search.

Unlock more exclusive Cybernews content on YouTube.