In a move that has sent shockwaves through the digital advertising landscape, Elon Musk’s X (formerly known as Twitter) has filed a high-stakes lawsuit against a coalition of major advertisers.
The crux of the lawsuit
The lawsuit, filed in a federal court in Texas, accuses dozens of advertisers of following the recommendation of the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM) to boycott buying ads on X. According to the complaint, this coordinated action has cost the company billions in lost revenue, a direct violation of US antitrust laws.
The lawsuit contends that GARM, a Brussels-based advertising industry group, has amassed too much influence over the content moderation policies of social media platforms. By collectively establishing “brand safety standards,” GARM has effectively usurped the ability of individual platforms to determine what content is acceptable for their users.
The lawsuit draws heavily on the findings of a preliminary report by the US House Judiciary Committee, which has been investigating GARM’s activities. The committee’s investigation has unearthed evidence of a “systematic illegal boycott against X,” according to X CEO Linda Yaccarino.
The lawsuit’s allegations come on the heels of a high-profile incident in which several major brands, including IBM, Disney, and Lionsgate, pulled their ads from X after pro-Nazi content was found alongside their advertisements. In a now-infamous response, not long after his takeover, Musk told those brands to “Go fuck yourself”, including name-dropping Disney CEO Bob Iger, making this U-turn all the more bizarre, even by Musk’s standards.
In a potential preview of the advertisers’ legal strategy, the advertising watchdog group Check My Ads has argued that advertisers have a First Amendment right to choose with whom and what they want to associate. The group contends that requiring advertisers to “subsidize viewpoints they don’t agree with” would be “un-American and unconstitutional.”
This is not the first time a smaller social media platform has taken on the advertising giants. In May, Rumble filed a lawsuit against Google’s advertising business, also alleging antitrust violations. Google has since filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, arguing that Rumble lacks standing.
The broader implications: Shaping the future of social media
The outcome of these lawsuits could have far-reaching implications for the future of social media platforms, the advertising industry, and the delicate balance between free speech and brand safety. As the battle lines are drawn, the world watches with bated breath to see who will emerge victorious.
As X navigates the treacherous waters of the advertising boycott, the platform faces an uncertain future. With billions of dollars in revenue at stake and the spectre of antitrust violations looming, Musk and his team must tread carefully to protect the company’s financial viability.
While Musk and CEO Linda Yaccarino talk of upholding the principles of free speech and protecting the “global town square” that is Twitter, nee X, the truth is that X has become a breeding ground for malcontent and misinformation, spewing vitriol that even sparked the recent riots in the UK. For all of Musk’s talk of championing free speech, the social media platform has become incredibly divisive and ripe picking for figureheads like Andrew Tate and Tommy Robinson to spew hate. Only time will tell if X’s lawsuit has merit, but Musk and Yaccarino’s cries of championing free speech ring hollow, and this seems more of a ruse to keep the cash registers ringing.
