Media Matters has secured a complete and total victory in its case against the Federal Trade Commission (Media Matters v. FTC).
In an effort to avoid another damaging decision from a federal court of appeals, the FTC sought to withdraw its appeal of the preliminary injunction awarded to Media Matters to halt the FTC’s retaliatory actions. Media Matters made clear that it would oppose that gamesmanship. Facing the prospect of a loss from what’s often considered the nation’s second highest court, the FTC ultimately submitted to a legally binding settlement agreement with Media Matters, withdrawing its blatantly retaliatory demands and committing to forgo ever reissuing or issuing a substantially similar Civil Investigative Demand to Media Matters.
The FTC also stated — in writing — that Media Matters is not the target of any investigation and that any similar future litigation would occur in D.C. The agreement — and the decisions Media Matters won in the district court and the court of appeals — offers a roadmap for other newsgathering and nonprofit organizations facing, or at risk of, government retaliation.
In June of 2025, Media Matters for America sued to block the U.S. FTC's retaliatory investigation into the organization. Subsequently, MMFA filed for a preliminary injunction to block the FTC investigation from moving forward, documenting ongoing, irreparable harm to its ability to exercise its First Amendment rights. In August 2025, the U.S. District Court for Washington, DC, granted a temporary injunction blocking the FTC from enforcing a civil investigative demand against Media Matters, ruling, among other things, that the agency likely acted with “retaliatory animus,” and that “Media Matters engaged in quintessential First Amendment activity when it published an online article criticizing Mr. Musk and X.”
In October of 2025, the U.S. Appeals Court for the District of Columbia Circuit declined to stay the lower court decision, temporarily preventing the investigation from moving forward. Circuit Judges Patricia Millett and Robert Wilkins found the FTC had not shown it was likely to win on the merits. In April, at a brutal oral argument for the government in which the judges relentlessly grilled the FTC’s counsel, Judge Patricia Millett demanded that the FTC explain whether there was something “radically left” “about being anti-Nazi.” Shortly thereafter, the FTC sought to withdraw its own appeal, and Media Matters stated it would oppose strategic gamesmanship. In response, the FTC ultimately agreed to a binding agreement that guarantees it will never reissue the investigative demands to Media Matters and confirms that Media Matters is not a target.