US seeks to join Elon Musk’s legal fight against €120m EU fine

The US government is offering support to Elon Musk in his legal challenge against €120 million imposed by the EU on X over its blue tick badges.

The legal battle started in December 2025 when the European Commission accused the platform of deceiving users by letting them pay for a blue verified tick badge without giving any assurances as to who is really behind this account.

The EU regulators also held X responsible for failing to provide transparency around its adverts and restricting researchers' access to public data.

On Thursday, the US Assistant Attorney General Brett A. Shumate hit back at the EU’s overreach while arguing that this penalty is meant to “inappropriately attempt” to expand the regulator’s influence over American companies outside its control.

Elon Musk frequently criticized EU technology regulations for stifling business innovation. In a notable development, the US Department of Justice has now intervened, filing an application with the EU's General Court to back Musk and X in their efforts to throw out the case.

According to the DOJ, the state may intervene in disputes before the court if “it can establish an interest in the result of the case to the court,” based on a section of law mentioned in the Statute of the Court of Justice of the EU. Through this intervention, the state also wants to make sure that the EU would not “otherwise prejudice US-headquartered digital services that contribute significantly to its economy.”

After the DOJ backing, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) remarks also came out in support.

"The European Commission's fine isn't just an attack on X, it's an attack on all American tech platforms and the American people by foreign governments," Rubio wrote in a post on X.

However, the EU denied targeting any specific company and nationality. Henna Virkkunen, the regulator's executive vice-president for tech sovereignty, said at the time of the fine's issue it was "holding X responsible for undermining users' rights and evading accountability".