SERVICE ADDRESS
Twitter (X) International Unlimited Company
Attn: Data Protection Officer
One Cumberland Place
Fenian Street
Dublin 2, D02 AX07, Ireland

Service Address:
Martin Newbold
15 Valleyside Road , Hastings, East Sussex, TN35 5AD  Unted Kingdom martinnnewbold.mn@gmail.com, +44 1424430373

Date: 25th November 2024

Dear Data Protection Officer,

I am writing to formally escalate my complaint regarding serious breaches of GDPR and improper handling of my account ([martin__newbold]). Despite multiple attempts to resolve this matter through various channels, including emails, recorded postal correspondence, and direct inquiries, I have received no substantive response from your organization.

Issues Raised:
Unauthorized Alteration and Removal of Account Data:
My account was placed in “read-only” mode. Despite this restriction, key data, including personal artwork and notifications, has been altered or removed without authorization. This indicates unauthorized access and misuse of my account. You are failing to highlight which rule X Rules was proven in your liable statement, “After careful review, we determined your account broke the X Rules. Your account is permanently in read-only mode, which means you can’t post, repost, or like content. You won’t be able to create new accounts. If you think we got this wrong, you can…” Which careful review, if at all, did you consider? Or is your organization not acting legally, using unreasonable behavior, and taking my account hostage under the determination that if I pay 900 GBP per calendar month, it will be released? Quite frankly, your actions have breached family life, enabling me neither to contact nor determine if my daughter is dead. On November 24, 2024, the situation with my daughter, which your organization has decided to hide, was reported to the Special Office of Fraud Investigation under reference C98C91180D570DC. Quite clearly, you have not demonstrated compliance with your own license under X Rules. 

Quite frankly, neither you nor the ICO have acted legally with your data protection issues, which you agreed under the court in Twitter, Inc. v. Elon R. Musk et al, C.A. No 2022-0613-KSJM, in the state of Delaware, which is one of Delaware’s three constitutional courts, alongside the Supreme Court and Superior Court. Since 2018, the court consists of seven judges connected to corporate litigation government. Do I need to contact this court in Delaware and inform them that you have reneged on your agreements under this court as part of Rule 5 to act in Twitter, Inc. v. Elon R. Musk et al, C.A. No 2022-0613-KSJM ?This is a court that handles corporate governance, mergers, and disputes involving Delaware corporations, which includes cases related to business law.

The judge who presided over this case was Vice Chancellor Kathaleen St. J. McCormick, often referred to as Judge McCormick. She oversaw the legal proceedings in the dispute between Twitter and Elon Musk related to Musk’s attempted acquisition of the company. Where your account has been restricted (referred to as being “ghosted”), and a charge of £900  per calendar month has been imposed, possibly related to your access to Twitter (now X). I expect the potential connections or arguments for the legality of the account restrictions, terms of service violations, or the imposition of fees. I cite the principles established in the Delaware case, especially as I believe that Twitter/X has failed to honor its commitments or agreements in a manner consistent with legal rulings. Twitter/X is failing to comply with the contract terms that govern your use of the platform, similar to how Musk attempted to back out of a legally binding agreement in the case you referenced. Twitter was awarded the right to enforce the merger agreement as a precedent for enforcing agreements made by corporate entities like Twitter. Specifically, if Twitter/X made promises regarding your account or its treatment and has failed to follow through, this could form part of your legal challenge.  Your agent @Elon_Rmusk0 stated on Telegram November 19, 2024:

“Your account is still suspended right….you will need to resubscribe again.”

• The Delaware case as a precedent for corporate responsibility and contract enforcement.
• How Twitter/X has not met its obligations regarding your account.
• Your request for a clear explanation of the escalation of the fee for use set at  £950 fee p.c.m or  £11,400 p.y. and the only clear reason for the account suspension.

I would like to highlight the legal precedent set in the Delaware Court of Chancery case: Twitter, Inc. v. Elon R. Musk et al. (C.A. No. 2022-0613-KSJM), in which Vice Chancellor Kathaleen St. J. McCormick presided over the legal dispute between Twitter and Elon Musk. This case centered on the enforcement of contractual obligations and corporate responsibility. In the case, Twitter was awarded the right to enforce the merger agreement with Musk, emphasizing the importance of corporate entities honoring their commitments under legally binding agreements.

In a similar manner, I believe that Twitter/X has failed to meet its obligations regarding the treatment of my account. The £950 GBP per calendar month fee and the decision to restrict my account without clear justification appear to be in conflict with both the platform’s contractual terms and the principles of fair treatment outlined in the platform’s Terms of Service.

I am aware X Corp. v. Garland is a case about X (formerly Twitter) seeking to block certain transparency-related requests about government surveillance, with the company challenging these in the context of U.S. jurisdiction. This could be relevant to how similar requests may be treated in other countries, possibly invoking jurisdictional concerns over foreign legal authority. This could affect how governments and companies address cross-border legal obligations. It also affects anyone expecting data from Twitter in America. However, I am not in America, and it seems you are using non-jurisdicional law against my account [martin__newbold] based in the UK.  As X Corp. is applying non-jurisdictional law to your UK-based account, this may conflict with UK data protection laws and regulations like the GDPR. 

Kind Regards

Mr. Martin Newbold