WEIR
Get a key
Language中文日本語
Theme

Is Scraping Twitter Legal? X's Terms and Court Cases (2026)

Is scraping Twitter legal? What X's October 2026 terms say, five court cases with dates, the public vs logged-in line, and how the risk changes by use.


Published · Updated · 7 min read

Cover image: Scraping X, in court

Scraping public Twitter posts is unlikely to be a crime in the US, but X's terms forbid it, so it can still get you sued.

This guide is for developers, researchers and marketers who want X (Twitter) data and want to know the risk first. You get X's own words, five court cases with dates, and a table of how the risk changes by use.

We run Weir, a paid API for public X data, so weigh our view knowing that. This is not legal advice.

Here is the line in X's terms that matters most, as of October 2026:

crawling or scraping the Services in any form, for any purpose
without our prior written consent is expressly prohibited

X's Terms of Service forbid scraping in plain words. The version in force since 9 October 2026 says you "cannot scrape the Services without X's express written permission."

The same terms ban trying "to work around any technical limitations we impose." They also put a price on heavy use:

$15,000per million posts, X's liquidated damages
1Mposts in 24 hours before that clause applies
Texascourts for disputes outside the EU, EFTA and UK

The damages clause covers "requesting, viewing, or accessing" more than 1,000,000 posts in a day. Users in the EU, EFTA states and the UK get a version priced in euros.

One phrase softens it. The ban applies "except as required by applicable law," which leaves room for any law that requires access.

So breaking X's terms is a contract question first. A contract claim is a lawsuit for money or an order to stop. It is not a criminal charge.

What courts have said about scraping

US courts have heard five cases that shape the answer. Here is the short version, newest last:

Case Year Court Result
Van Buren v. US 2021 Supreme Court Narrowed the anti-hacking law
hiQ v. LinkedIn 2022 9th Cir., N.D. Cal. hiQ lost on contract, paid
Meta v. Bright Data 2024 N.D. Cal. Logged-out scraping no breach
X v. CCDH 2024 N.D. Cal. Dismissed as a SLAPP
X v. Bright Data 2025 N.D. Cal. Settled, terms confidential

The table hides the details that matter, so here they are.

  • Van Buren (June 2021). The Supreme Court read the US anti-hacking law, the CFAA, as a "gates-up-or-down" question. Either you may enter a system or you may not. A footnote left open whether a website's terms can close the gate.
  • hiQ v. LinkedIn (2022). The Ninth Circuit found "serious questions" over whether scraping public profiles broke the CFAA. Then a trial court found hiQ broke LinkedIn's user agreement through scraping and fake accounts, and hiQ agreed to a $500,000 judgment.
  • Meta v. Bright Data (January 2024). Judge Edward Chen held that Meta's terms did not bar Bright Data's logged-out scraping. Meta then dropped the case.
  • X v. CCDH (March 2024). X sued a nonprofit for scraping X for its research reports. The court threw the case out as a SLAPP, a suit meant to punish speech. X appealed, and we could not confirm how the appeal ended.
  • X v. Bright Data (2024 to 2025). In May 2024 Judge William Alsup dismissed X's scraping claims, holding that copyright law preempted them. In November 2024 he let X revive claims that scrapers strained its servers. The two sides settled in June 2025.

Public data vs logged-in scraping

The clearest line in these cases is the login. Public pages are, in Van Buren's words, a gate that is up.

Logging in changes three things for you:

  • You accepted the terms. A signed-in account is a clear contract, and Meta's loss turned on Bright Data being logged out.
  • Fake accounts count against you. hiQ's use of them helped LinkedIn win on contract.
  • Protected posts are not public. Reading them means going past a gate X closed.

Getting around blocks is a separate risk. X's terms ban it outright, and it moves you toward the "gates down" side of the CFAA. We don't explain how to do it, and Weir doesn't either.

What you do with the data moves the risk as much as how you got it. This table is a starting point for a talk with a lawyer, not a ruling:

Your use Main risk Safer route
Read a few posts by hand Very low X's own search
Academic research Terms, ethics review Research access, small samples
Brand monitoring Terms, volume damages Official or paid API
Reselling raw posts Contract, copyright A license from X
Training an AI model Terms, copyright, privacy Ask a lawyer first
Profiling one person Privacy, stalking laws Don't

Privacy law is the part people forget. In August 2023, 12 privacy regulators said that public personal information "is subject to data protection and privacy laws" in most places.

That group included the UK, Canada and Australia. In the EU, GDPR covers the name and posts of anyone you collect, even when the posts are public.

For studies, our guide to Twitter data for academic research covers X's route for EU research and an ethics checklist.

Where Weir fits, honestly

Weir is an API that reads public X posts and profiles for you, billed per result. It never reads protected accounts or DMs, never posts, and never needs your X account.

Weir is not licensed by or affiliated with X, so access can change. Using an API instead of your own scraper doesn't move X's terms off your desk. Our terms say you are responsible for how you use the content, and our acceptable use policy bans profiling people.

The route X permits is its own API. As of October 2026, X's pricing page lists $0.005 per post read. Our Weir vs the official X API page lays out when each one fits.

When not to use Weir

  • You need X's written permission. Only X can give it, through its API or a deal.
  • Your company requires licensed data. A third party can't give you that.
  • You want to train a commercial AI model. Get legal advice before you collect anything.
  • You want what one private person posted or liked. Don't, with any tool.

FAQ

Can X sue you for scraping?

Yes. X has sued scrapers, including Bright Data in 2023 and a nonprofit, CCDH. X lost the main claims in both at first. The Bright Data case settled in June 2025 on terms nobody has published.

Is scraping public data illegal?

Not by itself in the US, based on the cases so far. Courts look at how you got in, whether you were logged in, and what you did with the data. The EU and UK add privacy rules for any personal data.

Does X allow scraping?

No. X's Terms of Service say "crawling or scraping the Services in any form, for any purpose" needs X's prior written consent. X's paid API is the route it permits, at $0.005 per post read as of October 2026.

Sources

All checked on 26 October 2026:

Keep reading