X Corp (formerly Twitter) filed a petition to overturn a 2022 FTC order requiring it to report on privacy violations, a move opposed by EFF and civil society groups. The order stems from a $150 million fine and data misuse involving 140 million users, including the use of private info like phone numbers for ads. EFF argues X’s restructuring and new AI initiatives don’t erase its legal obligations. The company claims its AI focus warrants leniency, but critics counter that lax oversight could enable future abuses. A 2011 settlement with the FTC established 20-year compliance rules, renewed in 2022, which X now seeks to end. Grok, X’s AI model trained on user data without consent, exemplifies ongoing risks. A 2025 data breach further undermines X’s claims of improved privacy practices. EFF’s letter emphasizes that corporate changes don’t absolve the entity of binding FTC mandates. The petition’s rejection would uphold accountability for past and present violations.

X’s argument hinges on corporate transformation, asserting it now prioritizes privacy under new leadership. However, evidence suggests otherwise. The integration of Grok in 2024, trained on user data without explicit consent, contradicts transparency claims. Additionally, the 2025 breach exposed vulnerabilities despite revised safeguards. X also argues that maintaining the order diverts resources from AI innovation, a claim EFF dismisses as prioritizing profit over user safety. The $150 million fine pales compared to X’s $200 billion valuation post-AI merger, making compliance a marginal cost. Civil society groups stress that without oversight, X could repeat past missteps, especially as AI models like Grok are vulnerable to data extraction attacks. The FTC’s decision hinges on whether corporate rebranding and technological shifts justify abandoning accountability.

The stakes extend beyond X. Weakened privacy enforcement could embolden tech giants to exploit user data under the guise of innovation. EFF’s response highlights that data breach incidents and AI-driven privacy risks are not abstract threats but concrete harms. For instance, Grok’s training methods could enable competitors to replicate sensitive user information. The 2022 order’s renewal to 2042 ensures long-term compliance, a safeguard X now seeks to dismantle. Critics warn that without enforcement, future violations may go unchecked. X’s petition reflects a broader trend of tech companies resisting regulatory oversight. While the company frames its case as pro-innovation, EFF insists that privacy protections and technological advancement aren’t mutually exclusive. The FTC must reject the petition to prevent a precedent where corporate restructuring nullifies legal obligations. This case underscores the need for robust, enforceable privacy frameworks in the AI era. Without them, user data remains a commodity rather than a right.