The United States challenged the €120 million ($136.51 million) fine the European Union imposed on Elon Musk’s X (formerly Twitter) over alleged breaches of online rules.
The alleged breach falls under a new series of regulations imposed by the EU, which has caused more friction with Washington, with the US arguing that the fines cannot be imposed on American companies operating outside the EU.
“The European Commission inappropriately attempted to expand its regulatory authority to reach American companies not present or operating within its jurisdiction,” said US Assistant Attorney General Brett A. Shumate of the Justice Department’s Civil Division.
“We will not tolerate the European Commission engaging in regulatory overreach to try and control American engines of innovation and economic growth,” he added.
According to the US Department of Justice, the fine also stepped over the “corporate veil” principle and targeted not only X as the company committing the breaches, but Musk himself and other companies he owns.
It also warned that the approach could “have significant implications for ‘very large online platforms’ and other similar entities operating in the digital services sector within the EU.”
The legal battle began in December 2025, after an almost two-year investigation found that X was not doing enough to tackle illegal and harmful content posted on the platform.
The case also represents a wider crackdown on Big Tech in the EU that aims to regulate the industry in order to allow smaller companies to compete and, in exchange, offer more choice to European consumers, something that has been widely criticized by the Trump administration.
Reuters reported that the European Commission, which acts as the EU’s executive arm, issued a response saying that the case didn’t target any specific nationality, making the US argument to intervene on the grounds of the Article 40 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the EU void.
The article, according to the US Department of Justice, “provides that a natural or legal person, including a State, may intervene in disputes before the Court where that person ‘can establish an interest in the result of the case to the Court.'”
The European Commission also said that the case aims to “defend its digital and democratic standards, which it says serve as the benchmark for the rest of the world.”
