Elon Musk's X sues coalition of advertisers over boycott
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
by Julia Shapero - 08/06/24 3:57 PM ET
Elon Musk's X sued a coalition of advertisers leading a boycott against the social platform, accusing the group of conspiring to "collectively withhold billions of dollars in advertising revenue."
The suit takes aim at the World Federation of Advertisers and its initiative called the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM), which led a boycott against the platform formerly known as Twitter after it was acquired by Musk in 2022.
"The boycott and its effects continue to this day, despite X applying brand safety standards comparable to those of its competitors and which meet or exceed those specified by GARM," reads the lawsuit, which was filed Tuesday in Texas federal court.
X accused the coalition and several specific advertisers, namely Unilever, Mars and CVS, of violating antitrust law and circumventing the competitive process with their boycott.
"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 to promote their own economic interests through commercial restraints at the expense of social media platforms and their users," the platform argued.
Since Musk's takeover of the platform, X has struggled to retain advertisers, which were wary of the tech billionaire's early decisions to roll back content moderation policies and reinstate previously banned users, like former President Trump.
Several major advertisers also paused their spending on the platform in November after reports emerged that X was placing ads for mainstream brands next to pro-Nazi and white nationalist content.
Musk responded by lashing out at advertisers, telling them to "go f‑‑‑ yourself." He since has walked back the statement, arguing it wasn't aimed at advertisers "as a whole."
"We tried being nice for 2 years and got nothing but empty words. Now, it is war," he said in a Tuesday post on X, later adding, "I strongly encourage any company who has been systematically boycotted by advertisers to file a lawsuit."
Rumble, a YouTube-like video-sharing platform popular among conservatives, has joined the lawsuit, the company revealed in a press release Tuesday.
Tags Elon Musk
Copyright 2024 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Keep it on topic, people.
Tags
Who is online
413 visitors
If this doesn't get thrown out of court right away it will be simple for GARM to use Musk's words against him in court. Also GARM only has to say they make recommendations; it's up to the companies to do as they wish. So barring any smoking gun email this will die a quick death if/when it makes it to court.
the court fines for filing frivolous lawsuits need to be based upon the damages sought, in addition to assigning all court costs, damages, and opposition attorney fees to the plaintiff.
The more I think about it, the more I want this to drag out in the courts for years racking up legal costs that X will have to pay in the end.
Not too sure that Muck is that worried about legal costs as his current net worth is around $220 billion.
It's not like he has it in the bank. He can lose half that in an hour if the markets turn against him.
That would be awesome! Although he would still be filthy rich.
X claims it's lost more than half of it's advertising revenue in the last year.
I'm watching a few friends business's suffer now for their past decisions incorporating their political beliefs into their advertising. meh, I tried to tell them years ago they were alienating half the available market share ...
And that's a statement I can agree with. We've all seen companies make stupid decisions to include political / religious / partisan beliefs into their advertising and lose business because of it.
I won't do business with places that advertise with a Jesus fish or Bible verses on their blackboard menu
it sucks being stupid, and that's a difficult lesson to learn for some ...
And that is definitely your choice. I tend to ignore those small things myself, but if staff is attempting to "push" their religion (whatever it is) I won't do business with them.
And some never seem to learn from it. Just look at Bud Light. I don't drink that beer, but that's because I think it tastes like crap. I like my beer to have something us old guys like to call 'flavor'. But they continue to lose business all because of a stupid mistake.
that's exactly what I thought of first. in your face thumpers don't get any of my money... fuck'm all...
I've found that those who display their jesus fish are not honest and don't give good service
Sometime true, those are attempting to virtue signal thinking that might bring in more people. But to me that's really a small thing and I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt at those times. If service is bad I won't go back, just like if someone attempts to push their version of whatever in my face I won't do business. But to me, just putting up the fish is a small thing. No different that the people who have the fish magnet on the back of their car. Doesn't really impact me and I ignore it.
That's what makes this world so great, we are all a bit different. Imagine how boring this world would be if we were all the same. Places like this board wouldn't even exist as how uninteresting would it be to log on to a discussion site where everybody already has the exact same opinion.
all that fucking fish means is that you'll be paying their next tithe on your bill, and when they fuck you over along with the rest of their customers, they know they'll be forgiven for it next sunday...
way back when in my sales career I used to walk when the thumping started. then I got smart and learned to play to my audience. I knew what to say and when it came time to close the deal believing they got a special discount, I'd rip their fucking heads off on the contract and they would happily run to the slaughter.
It will be interesting to watch and see how much comes out in discovery from the court case. GARM is also being investigated by the House. It kind of appears that this is another effort to blacklist conservative sites & businesses. Here's a recent article from Turley where he talks about it. Not saying either side is 100% pure in their motives, but this IMO is something that should be watched. Any attempt to silence an opposing voice should be looked at fully.
I have no doubt there are some on this site who will fully support GARM and encourage the blocking of what they call disinformation, but I think one needs to be careful with how they view it. One thing we can fully appreciate is how the pendulum swings on these types of things.
The GARMs Race: The House Moves Forward With its Investigation of Blacklisting Company – JONATHAN TURLEY
I'm all for monitoring and blocking disinformation. But to outright someone because of their political views smacks of the Soviet Union and Hitler's Germany
As am I, but I believe that any person or group that is doing the monitoring and blocking of information needs to be fully above board in how they determine what is disinformation from valid information. There was too much "disinformation" blocked during the Covid pandemic that now is coming out as not really disinformation but dissenting opinion and information.
It wouldn't matter. Disinformation is something pretty hard to identify, most of the time. The best defense against disinformation is the individual receiving it. They have to use a little critical thinking, check their biases and preferences and so on.
For instance, is everyone who objects to open borders a racist? Is every person wanting universal healthcare a socialist or communist?
Disinformation can be pretty hard to identify in most cases, or so I believe. I would not trust anyone else, even if they were conservative like I am, to make that determination for me. Setting up some institution to try to do so is incredibly dangerous and should not be done. Instead, we need to think for ourselves. Do the research.
I agree which is why I would want any group that does this to be fully above board. I don't just want them to block disinformation, I want to fullly understand how and why they determined it was false. Anything less is censorship which should never be allowed.
The best defense against disinformation as you said is the individual receiving it. Problem is so many people have given up the ability to think for themselves and instead follow the herd.
The lawsuit was the result of a House report, but we know Jimmy Jordan isn't exactly an unbiased witness.
Which is not against the law. Just as A Million Moms can black list Target or MAGA can black list Bud Light.
Another non-biased voice? /s
That sounds a little authoritarian.
GARM collects information that advertisers can use to make determinations for where they want to spend their money.
I wouldn't call anybody who works in Washington as unbiased. IMO Washington is the greatest threat to our country today.
No, it's not against the law but is it right? I don't follow other groups who black list an organization, I chose where I spend my money and what I watch and listen to.
See answer #1 above.
The attempt to silence an opposing voice IMO is definitely authoritarian. It should be looked at as (as they say) sunlight is the best disinfectant. When one group is attempting to tell where to do business and who to avoid, I believe the motives and money should be looked at out in the public.
So they say, but they would not be the first organization in history to be deliberately opaque with how they try to function. They have been accused of focusing on partisan issues and IMO should be looked at so everyone can know what they are doing and why.
Are you saying an outside industry group makes companies do their bidding?
The only ones that seem to have an issue with GARM are those perpetuating and abetting an abusive system. It's quite sad that in the era of Trump and MAGA hate speech has become a partisan issue.
I'm saying that GARM states all they do is collect information and let advertisers decide for themselves. But just like pollsters, how they collect the information and how they present it can make all the difference to advertisers. If the presented focus is partisan based, how hard do you think it would be for said partisanship to be hidden. That's why I'm saying it should all be out in the open. Right now it's not.
That era has been going on for a long time. It was the Obama IRS that finally admitted to targeting selected political groups applying for tax-exempt status based on their names or political themes. It appears that the first order of business for Washington agencies is to lie to the public, even when caught out. Why should we think the same isn't happening under so-called public groups who say they are working for our own good?
If it cannot be reviewed and put out for the public, why would anybody trust it except under partisanship rules? There are way too many people today who will only trust something if it comes from their partisan political outlook. And I say that's just wrong.
GARM was created by an industry to do a certain job for them and it's not what X or the House claims it's doing. I don't think X is going to win this case even if what GARM is doing is partisan, the government can't compel businesses to spend their money where the government wants it to any more than the government can compel me where I can spend my money.
Exactly. Who the fuck does musk think he is?
GARM was created to serve and make money from an industry. You make it sound like the advertising industry created it itself. It's really no different than any other advertiser. While I doubt if Musk's case will go very far, I think it will be interesting to watch the fallout from the case.
Jim Jordan and Musk think it's the advertising industry being mean to conservatives.
The NFL anti-trust case didn't make much news. Only one media figure really talked about it in any detail with the exception of the $4+B jury aware that the judge nullified the next day. i don't expect anyone outside a couple of blogs to pay all that close attention. It could well take years to make it into court if it passes the sniff test. But yes it will be interesting.
At least this gives Jordan something to do. God knows they aren't doing the job they were elected to.
He was useless before he was in Congress I'd expect nothing less now.
After the lawsuit was filed GARM disbanded and dissolved. From the couple of articles I've read on this it looks even less likely for X to win their case now.