X Corp. Wants to Ditch Its Privacy Promises. Here’s Why the FTC Should Say No.

The Great Escape: X Corp. Tries to Slip Its Privacy Leash

Imagine you get a speeding ticket, then repaint your car and change its license plate. Does the ticket vanish? Of course not. Yet that’s essentially what X Corp. (formerly Twitter) is trying to pull on the Federal Trade Commission. In a recent petition, X asked the FTC to vacate a 2022 consent order that required the company to implement robust privacy controls after a series of data breaches exposed user information. The company argues that its rebranding and corporate restructuring mean the old order no longer applies. Spoiler: that’s not how the law works.

What’s at Stake? Your Data, Your Trust, and AI’s Appetite

The 2022 order wasn’t a suggestion—it was a binding agreement to fix systemic privacy failures. Among other things, X promised to stop misusing phone numbers provided for two-factor authentication, to limit data retention, and to submit to independent audits. Now, with the rise of AI training on user data, the stakes are even higher. If X can wriggle out of its obligations, it could set a dangerous precedent: any company could rebrand or restructure to escape accountability. And with X’s Grok AI already gobbling up user posts for training, the privacy implications are massive.

EFF and Allies: “Nice Try, But No”

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, along with other privacy and consumer groups, filed a joint letter urging the FTC to reject X’s petition. Their argument is simple: a company’s name or corporate structure doesn’t erase its legal duties. “X Corp. is the same entity that collected users’ data under false pretenses,” the letter states. “Changing the sign on the door doesn’t change the obligation to protect that data.” The groups also warn that granting X’s request would undermine the FTC’s enforcement power and send a signal that privacy violations have no lasting consequences.

The FTC’s Dilemma: Precedent vs. Pragmatism

The FTC now faces a choice. It can hold the line, reaffirming that consent orders follow companies through rebranding and restructuring—a position that protects consumers and preserves regulatory credibility. Or it can cave, setting a precedent that every company with a troubled privacy history can simply change its name and start fresh. That would be like letting a repeat offender off the hook because they got a new haircut. The FTC’s decision will ripple far beyond X: it will tell every company whether privacy promises are binding or just PR.

What You Can Do: Don’t Let X Rewrite the Rules

This isn’t just a legal squabble—it’s about whether your data rights have any teeth. The FTC is accepting public comments on X’s petition until [date]. You can submit your own comment urging the FTC to deny the petition. It takes five minutes, and it’s more effective than reading Terms of Service (which, let’s be honest, is about as fun as cleaning grout with a toothbrush). Submit your comment here.

Remember: a rose by any other name would still smell as sweet—and a data violator by any other name still owes you privacy.