San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu has sued Trump Media & Technology Group over its Truth API service, alleging that the company gives customers paying up to $100,000 a month faster access to President Donald Trump's potentially market-moving Truth Social posts.
The complaint, filed 21 September in San Francisco Superior Court, alleges that the arrangement facilitates trading on material nonpublic government information and violates California's Unfair Competition Law.
Trump Media disputes that premise, arguing that Truth Social posts are public as soon as they are published. The allegations have not been adjudicated, and no court has ruled that Truth API constitutes insider trading.
At the heart of the dispute is a speed advantage measured in milliseconds.
Trump Media interim CEO Kevin McGurn said in a 24 August CNBC interview that Truth API provides what he called a 50-millisecond advantage in delivery and can feed posts directly into algorithmic trading systems. But he maintained that the posts themselves are released publicly in real time.
That distinction is central to the case.
San Francisco alleges that paying customers obtain access to government information before ordinary market participants have a practical opportunity to receive and act on it. Trump Media says Truth API simply provides faster, machine-readable delivery of information that is already public.
Why Firms Pay for Milliseconds
Trump Media announced Truth API on 16 July and said it expected the business-to-business service to become available to institutional customers on 1 August.
The company described the product as a licensed, real-time feed for organisations that place a premium on immediate access to influential Truth Social accounts.
The service officially launched on 1 August. In its second-quarter filing, Trump Media described Truth API as offering 'licensed, low latency access to publicly-available posts' from selected top accounts.
In a Financial Times interview published on 5 August, McGurn said about 10 groups had signed agreements, most of them high-frequency trading firms. He said customers were paying between $60,000 and $100,000 a month.
Reuters separately reported that Trump Media had pitched a $100,000 monthly plan, with a discounted $60,000 monthly price for customers making a three-year commitment.
The customer count later increased. During the 24 August CNBC interview, McGurn said Truth API's subscriber count was in the 'mid-teens'
The product is intended to eliminate the need to manually monitor Truth Social. Trump Media says its feed gives machines faster access to posts in a format that automated systems can immediately process.
Why San Francisco Says It Crosses a Legal Line
Chiu's complaint argues that the service becomes legally problematic when Trump uses Truth Social to announce government decisions capable of affecting financial markets.
The complaint alleges that Trump Media is monetising preferential access to information derived from Trump's government service while that information remains unavailable to other market participants. It further alleges that the arrangement facilitates violations of federal ethics and securities laws and amounts to an unlawful or unfair business practice under California law.
'Trump Media created a marketplace that enables insider trading,' Chiu said when announcing the case. That is the city attorney's allegation, not a court finding.
San Francisco is asking the court to block Trump Media from offering Truth API or a similar service in violation of California law. The complaint also seeks civil penalties of up to $2,500 for each violation of the state's Unfair Competition Law, along with costs.
Trump Media is the named defendant. Trump himself is not personally named as a defendant in the San Francisco case.
Trump Media Says the Posts Are Already Public
Trump Media rejects the argument that Truth API gives subscribers legally nonpublic information.
In his Financial Times interview, McGurn called suggestions that the feed could constitute insider trading 'just false.' He said information becomes public once a user publishes a post and argued that the speed difference results from machines processing internet data faster than people.
Trump Media has also formally described Truth API in SEC-filed materials as providing low-latency access to 'publicly-available posts.'
A court has not yet decided whether the service's delivery model amounts to access to material nonpublic information or otherwise violates the laws invoked by San Francisco.
Truth API Faces a Separate Federal Challenge
The San Francisco lawsuit follows a 12 August federal case brought by The Intercept and the Freedom of the Press Foundation.
That case names Trump in his official capacity, White House aides Natalie Harp and Daniel Scavino, the Executive Office of the President and the White House Office. The plaintiffs are challenging the arrangement on First Amendment and equal-protection grounds and are seeking a preliminary injunction.
On 21 September, 53 former federal public-integrity prosecutors and federal agents submitted an amicus brief supporting the plaintiffs' request.
They argued that the arrangement could create potential criminal exposure under the Securities Exchange Act, the federal prohibition on illegal gratuities, conflict-of-interest and outside-compensation laws for federal employees, and the Trade Secrets Act. Those arguments, like San Francisco's allegations, have not been established by a court.
The cases pursue different legal theories.
San Francisco is challenging Trump Media's business practices under California law, while the New York plaintiffs are challenging the government's role in the arrangement on constitutional grounds.
Both cases nevertheless turn in part on the same unresolved issue: whether selling milliseconds-faster access to presidential communications is simply a commercial data service or gives paying customers a legally significant advantage over the wider public.
