TWITTER ASIA PACIFIC PTE. LTD. v MEDIA MATTERS FOR AMERICA

Facts

On 16 November 2023 Media Matters for America, a US non-profit based in Washington, D.C., published an article on its website, written by Mr Eric Hananoki, saying that X, the social media platform owned by Mr Elon Musk, had been placing advertisements for Apple, Bravo, IBM, Oracle and Xfinity next to pro-Nazi content. Apple and IBM then paused advertising on X. X Corp sued Media Matters in a Texas federal court, another group company sued in Ireland, and Media Matters' own suit in California was later dismissed.

Twitter Asia Pacific Pte Ltd, the Singapore subsidiary of X Corp through which the group contracts with advertisers in the Asia-Pacific region, brought HC/OC 556 of 2024 against Media Matters for defamation and malicious falsehood and obtained permission to serve the claim in the US. An Assistant Registrar set that permission aside, finding among other things that Singapore was forum non conveniens. The company appealed in Registrar's Appeal No 213 of 2025, heard by Low Siew Ling JC. By then the Texas case had seen more than 400,000 documents disclosed and was set for trial on 29 March 2027.

Issues

1. Whether a claimant relying on publication or damage in Singapore to show a nexus must establish every element of its torts to a good arguable case.
2. Whether the article referred to the appellant and its business.
3. Whether there was a good arguable case of publication and of damage in Singapore.
4. Whether Singapore was the appropriate forum, or the Texas court clearly and distinctly more appropriate.

Holding

The High Court dismissed the appeal. The appellant had shown a good arguable case of special damage in Singapore, which was enough for a sufficient nexus, but Singapore was forum non conveniens because the Texas court was clearly and distinctly the more appropriate forum. The appellant was given liberty to apply if the Texas court declined jurisdiction, and costs were to be heard separately.

Reasoning

On the standard, the judge held that the Assistant Registrar had erred, and counsel accepted this. A claimant who founds the Singapore nexus on a tort committed in part in Singapore, or on damage caused by a tort, must show a good arguable case for the whole cause of action, not merely a serious question to be tried, as Bradley Lomas Electrolok Ltd v Colt Ventilation East Asia Pte Ltd [1999] 3 SLR(R) 1156 had held under the old rules. Even on that higher standard, the statements arguably carried defamatory meanings: the word "placing" and the link to Mr Musk's views suggested deliberate placement, and "found" implied the ads were stumbled upon. The unchallenged pleading that Media Matters had gamed the algorithm with a curated account gave a good arguable case of falsity and malice.

On reference, the Assistant Registrar had given the reasonable reader too much knowledge. An advertiser acquainted with the appellant would know it sold advertising on X, and the article attacked the viability of advertising on X, so it could reasonably be read as referring to the appellant even though the appellant did not decide where ads appeared.

Publication in Singapore was not shown. A director's bare assertion, based on unexplained group user data, that a link appeared to Singapore users and was clicked was unsupported by any data or explanation of his competence, and had been materially revised once. Interactions with an X post did not show the article was read. The local news reports were syndicated wire stories, and the advertising agency's email came from New York. Special damage in Singapore was, however, arguable: the appellant was incorporated in Singapore, booked the region's advertising revenue into its Singapore account, and the global pause by Apple and IBM would have affected it.

On forum, the place of the tort and the governing law pointed different ways for the two claims: defamation to the US as the place of publication, malicious falsehood likely to Singapore as the place of damage. The parties' locations were neutral. Most witnesses and evidence, including how the platform's controls worked and how Media Matters produced its results, were in the US, and several key witnesses had left X Corp. The Texas case overlapped substantially and was well advanced, and Media Matters undertook to consent to joinder there and waive forum objections. A higher US burden of proof under the First Amendment did not amount to a denial of substantial justice, particularly as any Singapore judgment would face the same hurdles on enforcement against US assets.

From the judgment