FTC Seeks Comment on X's Bid to End the Twitter Privacy Order (2026)
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited June 6, 2026). · 2 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
On June 4, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission opened public comment on a petition by X Corp., formerly Twitter, to set aside or modify the agency's 2022 privacy order, which accompanied a $150 million penalty. X argues the order is obsolete and should end in 2026. Comments are due July 2, 2026.
Information last verified on June 6, 2026. This is a developing story; we update it as the record changes.
Jurisdiction scope: This article addresses a federal FTC proceeding on a petition to modify an existing Commission order. It does not analyze state privacy statutes or pending private litigation against X. For related FTC enforcement coverage, see our report on the FTC "active listening" settlement.
What Happened
On June 4, 2026, the FTC published a request for public comment on a petition filed by X Corp. asking the Commission to set aside or modify its 2022 order concerning Twitter, the matter docketed as C-4316. The notice opens a comment window that closes on July 2, 2026, after which the Commission has said it will vote on how to resolve the petition.
The order at issue dates to 2022. The FTC found that Twitter had asked users for phone numbers and email addresses to enable two-factor authentication, a security feature, and then used that contact information to target advertising without telling users. The agency treated the practice as deceptive. Twitter agreed to pay a $150 million civil penalty and to operate under an expanded privacy and data-security order with multi-year compliance obligations.
In its petition, X Corp. argues that the order should terminate at the end of 2026. It contends that the order was imposed on a company that, in its words, no longer exists, that the people responsible for the underlying conduct have left, and that X has since built what it calls a world-class privacy and data-protection program. X also argues the order now duplicates obligations it already meets under other privacy regimes, that setting it aside would serve First Amendment values, and that doing so is important to advancing American leadership in artificial intelligence.
What the Law Actually Says
FTC consent orders are not permanent fixtures, but they are not easy to escape either. Under the FTC Act and the Commission's Rules of Practice, a respondent can petition to reopen and set aside or modify an order, typically by showing that changed conditions of law or fact require it, or that the public interest does. The Commission, not a court, decides the petition in the first instance, and it invites public comment before voting. That is the stage this matter has reached.
The original order rests on Section 5 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 45, which prohibits unfair or deceptive practices. The deceptive practice the FTC identified was using security data, the phone numbers and emails gathered for two-factor authentication, for an undisclosed advertising purpose. Orders of this kind commonly run for many years and require ongoing assessments and reporting. A petition to end such an order early asks the Commission to find that the original justification no longer holds.
The petition does not pause the order. Until the Commission rules, the 2022 order's privacy-program and reporting obligations remain in force. The comment process is how the FTC gathers input on whether the changed-circumstances or public-interest standard is met.
Analysis: Why This Matters
The following is analysis from the Recording Law Editorial Team.
The petition is a test of consent-order durability. Consent orders are a primary tool of US privacy enforcement precisely because they bind a company for years after the headline penalty is paid. If a respondent can shorten an order by pointing to new ownership, departed personnel, and an upgraded compliance program, the bargain that produces these settlements looks different. The Commission's eventual reasoning, whatever the outcome, will signal how much weight those factors carry.
The artificial-intelligence overlay is what makes this more than a routine housekeeping petition. For many accounts, X shares public posts and Grok interactions with xAI to train models by default, with opt-outs available in settings. A petition that invokes AI leadership while seeking to lift privacy obligations invites scrutiny of how training-data practices line up with the order's commitments. The comment period gives the public, including privacy advocates and affected users, a formal channel to raise those questions.
We are not predicting how the Commission will rule. The petition presents arguments; the FTC has not adopted them, and the order stands until the Commission decides.
How This Affects You
For users, the immediate practical point is the comment deadline: members of the public can submit input to the FTC docket through July 2, 2026. The order itself does not give individuals a private claim, because the FTC Act has no private right of action. If you use X and are concerned about AI training, the relevant controls are in the platform's Grok and data-sharing settings, where opt-outs and account-privacy options exist. None of this is advice about any particular account or dispute; it is a description of the process and the general options.
This is general legal information, not legal advice. It covers a federal FTC proceeding on X Corp.'s petition to modify the 2022 Twitter order, verified on June 6, 2026. This story is developing and the Commission has not ruled; consult a lawyer licensed in your jurisdiction about your specific situation.
Related articles
Last updated: 2026-06-06. This is a developing story; details verified as of June 6, 2026.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is X Corp. asking the FTC to do?
X petitioned the FTC to set aside or modify the 2022 Twitter order (Docket C-4316), asking that it terminate at the end of 2026. X argues the company has changed, rebuilt its privacy program, and faces duplicative obligations.
What was the 2022 Twitter order about?
The FTC found Twitter used phone numbers and emails collected for two-factor authentication to target ads without disclosure. Twitter paid a $150 million penalty and accepted an expanded privacy and data-security order.
Has the FTC decided the petition?
No. On June 4, 2026 the FTC only opened public comment. Comments are due July 2, 2026, after which the Commission will vote. The 2022 order remains in effect in the meantime.
How can I submit a comment to the FTC?
The FTC accepts public comments through its docket for the matter until July 2, 2026. The agency's June 4, 2026 press release links the comment portal for Docket No. C-4316.
How do Grok and AI training fit in?
For many accounts, X shares public posts and Grok interactions with xAI for model training by default, with opt-outs in settings. The petition cites AI leadership, which has drawn attention to how training-data practices relate to the order.
Can individuals sue X under the FTC order?
No. The FTC Act has no private right of action; the Commission enforces its orders. Individuals may have separate claims under other laws, but those are distinct from this FTC proceeding.
Updates
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
United States Code Title 15
§ 45Unfair methods of competition unlawful; prevention by CommissionIn forcecited in 14 of our articles
Unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, are hereby declared unlawful. The Commission is hereby empowered and directed to prevent persons, partnerships, or corporations, except banks, savings and loan institutions described in section 57a(f)(3) of this title, Federal credit unions described in section 57a(f)(4) of this title, common carriers subject to the Acts to regulate commerce, air carriers and foreign air carriers subject to part A of subtitle VII of title 49, and persons, partnerships, or corporations insofar as they are subject to the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921, as amended [7 U.S.C. 181 et seq.], except as provided in section 406(b) of said Act [7 U.S.C. 227(b) ], from using unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 3,207 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):United States v. Philadelphia National Bank (1963) applied the bank exclusion in 15 U.S.C. 45(a)(6) when construing Clayton Act section 7, and Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp. (1984) noted that a corporation and its wholly owned subsidiaries remain subject to section 5 of the FTC Act.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc. (Supreme Court of the United States 1992, 504 U.S. 374)“…etition in commerce.” 38 Stat. 719 , codified as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 45 (a)(1). That type of prohibition is ent…”
- Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp. (Supreme Court of the United States 1984, 467 U.S. 752)“…d § 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 38 Stat. 719 , 15 U. S. C. §45 . That these statutes are adequate to c…”
- Bowen v. Massachusetts (Supreme Court of the United States 1988, 487 U.S. 879)“…n required to exhaust before coming into court. See 15 U. S. C. §45 (c) (1940 ed.); 29 U. S. C. § 160 (f)…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: FTC Fines Travel App Hopper $35 Million Over Hidden "Junk Fees", FTC Finalizes Order Against Illuminate Over Student Data Breach (2026), How the FTC's Nationwide Noncompete Ban Was Struck Down, and What It Means for At-Will Workers
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- FTC press release, FTC Seeks Comment on X Corp. Petition to Set Aside or Modify FTC Order Concerning Twitter (June 4, 2026), comment deadline July 2, 2026(ftc.gov).gov
- FTC, Twitter, Inc. Modified Order, Docket No. C-4316 (2022 privacy and data-security order accompanying the $150 million penalty)(ftc.gov).gov
- 15 U.S.C. 45, Section 5 of the FTC Act (unfair or deceptive acts or practices), the basis for the 2022 order(law.cornell.edu)