X Corp. v. Bright Data is a lawsuit by the operator of the social media platform X against Bright Data Ltd., a company that scrapes public web data and sells scraping tools and datasets. X alleged breach of its Terms of Service, tortious interference, trespass to chattels and related claims. Judge William Alsup dismissed the complaint on 2024-05-09, holding that the claims based on scraping and selling data were preempted by the Copyright Act.[1]
Background
X’s Terms grant X a non-exclusive licence to content users post, while users keep ownership. The Terms also state that “scraping the Services in any form, for any purpose without our prior written consent is expressly prohibited”, and require anyone who wants to reproduce, distribute or otherwise use content to use the interfaces X provides.[1] The court noted that X itself sells tools that let others extract and copy public data from the platform.[1]
The dispute
X said Bright Data evaded its anti-scraping technology, scraped data, sold it, and sold software and proxy services that let others do the same.[2] Bright Data moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, which was denied, and for failure to state a claim.[1]
Decision or outcome
On 2024-05-09 the court split X’s theories in two. To the extent the claims rested on access to X’s systems, they failed because X had alleged only threadbare elements. To the extent they rested on scraping and selling data, they were preempted because they stood as an obstacle to the purposes of the Copyright Act: X’s licence rights track the exclusive rights of a copyright owner, yet X disclaims ownership, and the Terms were being used to give it a right to exclude others from copying public content.[1] The court also rejected a theory that depended on X amending its Terms after the suit began.[1]
On 2024-11-26 the court granted leave to replead access-based claims, denied leave for scraping-based claims including contract breach and tortious interference, and allowed new claims under the DMCA, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and the California computer access statute to proceed to discovery.[2] On 2025-04-18 it sustained Bright Data’s counterclaims, which allege that X’s Terms restrain competition in the market for public data, except one claim of fraudulent competition under section 17200.[3]
Significance for software licensing and SAM practice
The orders are district court rulings at the pleading stage. They show that a terms-of-service restriction on copying public content may be tested against copyright law as well as contract law, and that broad restrictions can themselves be challenged on competition grounds. For organisations that license data or AI services, the case is a reminder to read what a provider’s terms permit for automated access and reuse. See also Meta Platforms v. Bright Data and generative AI licensing.
Lessons learned
- Contract claims can be preempted. Claims that enforce scraping and reuse restrictions on content the platform does not own were held preempted by the Copyright Act.[1]
- Access and scraping are different theories. The court treated claims about accessing systems separately from claims about copying public data, and let only the former be repleaded.[2]
- Terms cannot be rewritten mid-dispute. The court found no authority for unilaterally amending a contract midway through litigation about it.[1]
- Restrictive terms invite counterclaims. Bright Data’s antitrust counterclaims against X’s terms were sustained at the pleading stage.[3]