Has X (formerly Twitter) responded or filed a motion in the Candace Owens lawsuit and when?
Executive summary
There is no evidence in the reporting supplied that X (formerly Twitter) has responded to or filed any motion in the defamation lawsuit brought by Emmanuel and Brigitte Macron against Candace Owens; the published coverage instead documents the Macrons’ July 2025 complaint and Owens’ subsequent procedural filings, including a motion to dismiss in September 2025 (BBC; Them; TIME) [1] [2] [3].
1. The suit and where it was filed
French President Emmanuel Macron and his wife Brigitte filed a U.S. civil defamation lawsuit against Candace Owens in July 2025, alleging repeated false statements that the first lady was born male and asking for unspecified damages while naming Owens’ Delaware-headquartered companies as defendants (BBC; Clare Locke filing) [1] [4].
2. Candace Owens’ procedural response
Candace Owens’ legal team has not only answered media pressure with public commentary but also mounted formal litigation defense: reporting shows Owens filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit — arguing among other things that Delaware is the wrong forum and accusing the Macrons of “libel tourism” — with that motion dated to mid-September 2025 in several accounts (Them; BBC) [2] [5].
3. The Macrons’ pushback and amended complaint
Rather than sitting on the original filing, the Macrons expanded the case: outlets report a substantial amended complaint submitted later in 2025 alleging Owens “doubled down” on false claims and outlining additional incidents and harms, with one report describing the amendment as some 250 pages long (Advocate; Them) [6] [2].
4. What the supplied reporting says about X (formerly Twitter)
None of the provided sources reports that X has filed a motion, entered an appearance, or otherwise formally responded in the Macrons–Owens Delaware litigation; the docket snapshot and the major stories focus on the parties (Macrons and Owens), their counsel, and Owens’ motions — not on any procedural involvement by X as a party (court docket; BBC; Them) [7] [5] [2]. If X had moved to intervene or filed a separate motion, routine legal reporting and the court docket would likely record such activity, but that absence in the materials supplied here means no affirmative claim about X’s participation can be made on the basis of these sources alone [7].
5. Why a platform might or might not appear in filings — context and conflicting incentives
Platforms are sometimes named or asked to produce records in defamation or discovery fights because they host disputed speech, yet strategic reasons can counsel silence: plaintiffs may choose to sue a speaker rather than a platform to avoid complex jurisdictional fights and Section 230-style defenses on the platform’s part; conversely, platforms often resist being dragged into high-profile foreign-plaintiff litigation unless subpoenaed or named — coverage of this particular case emphasizes the Macrons’ targeting of Owens herself and her U.S. businesses, not X, which aligns with the absence of reporting about any motion by X in the supplied accounts (BBC; Them; Clare Locke filing) [5] [2] [4].
6. What to watch next and limitations of current coverage
Key events to monitor for confirmation of platform involvement include new docket entries on the Delaware court portal (which the supplied court snapshot does not show), public press statements from X legal counsel, and follow-up reporting that would note an intervention or motion by the company; none of the sources furnished here documents any such step by X, so the current record — while robust on the Macrons’ complaint and Owens’ procedural defenses — is silent about platform legal action and therefore cannot support the assertion that X has filed or responded in this case (court docket; BBC; Them) [7] [5] [2].