Image 01 Image 03

Elon Musk’s X Brings Antitrust Lawsuit Against GARM and Advertisers Over Boycott

Elon Musk’s X Brings Antitrust Lawsuit Against GARM and Advertisers Over Boycott

X CFO Linda Yaccarino: “People are hurt when the marketplace of ideas is constricted. No small group of people should be able to monopolize what gets monetized.”

Elon Musk’s  X Corp. has filed an antitrust lawsuit against the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM) and the World Federation of Advertisers (WFA) for conspiring to boycott the social media platform.

Musk warned earlier this month of his plans to sue GARM for targeting X due to its free speech policies. The lawsuit filed in Texas federal court alleges GARM and the advertisers conspired to “collectively withold billions of dollars” in advertising from X.

It also follows House Judiciary Committee hearings revealing a systematic effort to demonetize and deplatform conservative media outlets.

As Professor Jacobson and Kemberlee Kaye wrote here, while GARM holds itself out as an initiative established by the WFA to protect the public from “harmful content” on digital media platforms, it’s mostly an attempt at political and cultural censorship:

Bringing dozens of global brands together under one umbrella makes GARM particularly dangerous because collective action magnifies the impact. WFA members include global brands such as McDonald’s, Exxon, Visa, Adidas and dozens more.

GARM landed in the House Judiciary hot seat because it flagged conservative content as too risky or offensive for all its corporate members to run advertising on.

According to the House report: “Evidence obtained by the Committee shows that GARM and its members directly organized boycotts and used other indirect tactics to target disfavored platforms, content creators, and news organizations in an effort to demonetize and, in effect, limit certain choices for consumers.”

“We tried being nice for 2 years and got nothing but empty words,” Musk says in his X feed, where he also encourages other companies that have been boycotted to sue. The lawsuit means war on the advertisers:

 

The alleged illegal boycott was triggered when Elon Musk acquired what was then Twitter in November 2022, according to the filing:

Pursuant to the conspiracy, major brand advertisers, including the advertiser Defendants and dozens of non-defendant co-conspirators, agreed to and did, abruptly and in lockstep, boycott Twitter by discontinuing entirely or substantially reducing their previously substantial advertising purchases from Twitter.

Before long, they bragged about their success:

Internally, GARM celebrated—and took responsibility for—the massive economic harm imposed on Twitter by the boycott, boasting within just a few months of the start of the boycott that “they [Twitter] are 80% below revenue forecasts.

GARM controls over 90 percent of spending in the global market, the complaint says. But “the brand safety standards set by GARM should succeed or fail in the marketplace on their own merits and not through the coercive exercise of market power by advertisers acting collectively” thereby violating antitrust law.

The real target of the boycott, though, is We the Users, X CEO Linda Yaccarino warned in a video announcing the lawsuit. It puts the global town square at risk:

People are hurt when the marketplace of ideas is constricted. No small group of people should be able to monopolize what gets monetized.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[*X is represented by Dhillon Law Group, where the author’s husband, Ron Coleman is Of Counsel.]

 

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Lucifer Morningstar | August 7, 2024 at 7:14 am

So Musk tells the advertisers to “Feck off” and they do. And now he’s suing those same advertisers because they aren’t advertising paying Musk billions to advertise on his social media platform. Whatever. Just shows how desperate Musk is to monetize “X” after being forced to buy it for an outrageous sum of money.

    This is a pretty stupid comment but not a surprising one for people unable to think for themselves.

    This isnt about telling advertisers to fuck off. Its about suing a very small number of people who have taken it upon themselves to decide where companies can and cannot advertise. There is a very big difference between the two.

    caseoftheblues in reply to Lucifer Morningstar. | August 7, 2024 at 8:55 am

    Boy talk about not understanding a situation. SMH

    It would seem you have chosen a highly appropriate username. A comment worthy of the dissembling of the Dark Lord.

NotSoFriendlyGrizzly | August 7, 2024 at 9:36 am

If I was a stockholder in one of the companies that works withuses GARM, I’d be suing the Board of Directors for breach of their fiduciary duty. To NOT advertise with one of the (if not THE) largest social media platforms in the world seems to be against the companys’ financial wellbeing.

Can you imagine how much $$$ is being lost daily???

    The_Mew_Cat in reply to NotSoFriendlyGrizzly. | August 7, 2024 at 1:46 pm

    That really depends on what the true purpose of their advertising is. Are they really advertising products/brands, or are they buying political and cultural narratives to please The Powers That Be? One could argue that nobody is persuaded by ads anymore, so brand ad spending really is for political purposes, and GARM just makes coordination easier.

JohnSmith100 | August 7, 2024 at 9:39 am

Google, YouTube & GoFundMe next please.

destroycommunism | August 7, 2024 at 10:39 am

the real fight is over those of us who cant afford to fight these censoring bigwigs and how they are

censoring us

the uk is one step ahead of our regressives in charge and are using the msm to inflame people against patriotism in the uk, like they do in the usa

It’s too bad that the DOJ isn’t interested in the negative effect on interstate commerce.

Can Musk sue whomever chose that picture?