Elon Musk's X Sues Advertisers Coalition Over Boycott

[Social Media]

 

Elon Musk’s X has initiated legal action against a coalition of advertisers leading a boycott against the social media platform. The lawsuit, filed in Texas federal court, accuses the group of conspiring to “collectively withhold billions of dollars in advertising revenue” from the platform formerly known as Twitter.

 

The lawsuit targets the World Federation of Advertisers (WFA) and its Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM) initiative. GARM spearheaded the boycott following Musk’s acquisition of the platform in 2022. According to the suit, “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.”

 

In addition to the coalition, X specifically named advertisers such as Unilever, Mars, and CVS, accusing them of violating antitrust law and undermining the competitive process through their boycott. The platform argued, “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.”

 

Since Musk's takeover, X has faced challenges in retaining advertisers. Many were apprehensive about Musk's initial decisions to roll back content moderation policies and reinstate previously banned users, including former President Trump. Concerns escalated in November when reports surfaced that X was placing ads for mainstream brands next to pro-Nazi and white nationalist content, prompting several major advertisers to pause their spending on the platform.

 

Musk responded to the backlash with strong words for the advertisers, telling them to “go f‑‑‑ yourself.” He later clarified that his comment was not directed at advertisers "as a whole." In a recent post on X, Musk expressed his frustration, stating, “We tried being nice for 2 years and got nothing but empty words. Now, it is war.” He also encouraged other companies experiencing similar boycotts to file lawsuits.

 

Joining X in the lawsuit is Rumble, a video-sharing platform popular among conservatives. The company announced its involvement in a press release, highlighting the broader implications of the advertisers' boycott on social media platforms.

 

Credit: Hill  2024-08-08

 

 

Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

 

Cigna offers a variety of health insurance plans designed to meet the minimum requirement for medical treatment coverage, with benefits reaching up to THB 3 million. These plans are tailored to provide comprehensive healthcare solutions for expatriates, ensuring peace of mind and access to quality medical services. To explore the full range of Cigna's expat health insurance options and find a plan that suits your needs, click here for more information.

[Tug]

Perhaps the advertisers are telling Elon to fxs himself ehh?I don’t see how that could possibly fly in court.

[impulse]

2 hours ago, Tug said:

Perhaps the advertisers are telling Elon to fxs himself ehh?I don’t see how that could possibly fly in court.

 

If one advertiser decides not to spend on X, that's legal.  If they independently decide not to advertise on X, that's legal. 

 

If they band together that's collusion, and it's illegal.  If they band together to squelch free speech, that's dangerous.

 

Glad to see that Rumble has joined the lawsuit.

 

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, impulse said:

 

If one advertiser decides not to spend on X, that's legal.  If they independently decide not to advertise on X, that's legal. 

 

If they band together that's collusion, and it's illegal.  If they band together to squelch free speech, that's dangerous.

 

Glad to see that Rumble has joined the lawsuit.

 

Not a fan of the First Amendment and Free Speech then.

 

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, impulse said:

 

If one advertiser decides not to spend on X, that's legal.  If they independently decide not to advertise on X, that's legal. 

 

If they band together that's collusion, and it's illegal.  If they band together to squelch free speech, that's dangerous.

 

Glad to see that Rumble has joined the lawsuit.

 

If they were competitors of Twitter, it would be illegal. But they're not.

And, of course, at this juncture, it's kind of absurd to claim that Twitter is a free speech site when Musk has repeatedly silenced his critics and those whose political opinions he disagrees with.

[gargamon]

5 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Not a fan of the First Amendment and Free Speech then.

 

Ooh. This ship is sinking. If I get off it's ok but if we all get off it's collusion? Hahaha.

[shdmn]

So now captain free market hates the free market? 

[shdmn]

1 hour ago, impulse said:

 

If one advertiser decides not to spend on X, that's legal.  If they independently decide not to advertise on X, that's legal. 

 

If they band together that's collusion, and it's illegal.  If they band together to squelch free speech, that's dangerous.

 

Glad to see that Rumble has joined the lawsuit.

 

 

They are free to advertise or not advertise wherever they want.  Best of luck clutching your pearls trying to sell this as a free speech thing or pretending it's illegal.

 

Edited August 8 by shdmn

[Thailand]

TwiXter is basically a MAGA media site, can plainly see that many of the non MAGA posters are having their accounts compromised in one way or another.

Most advertisers don't really want to be associated with a Trump vehicle, Monday night interview with Musk upcoming, and have simply pulled out.

Musk is probably losing even more money now hence the lawsuits which would be difficult to win.

[Chomper Higgot]

4 minutes ago, shdmn said:

 

They are free to advertise or not advertise wherever they want.  Best of luck trying to sell this as a free speech thing or pretending it's illegal.

 

Up next, Musk files suit against prospective customers who read a motoring review and bought Fords.

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, Thailand said:

TwiXter is basically a MAGA media site, can plainly see that many of the non MAGA posters are having their accounts compromised in one way or another.

Most advertisers don't really want to be associated with a Trump vehicle, Monday night interview with Musk upcoming, and have simply pulled out.

Musk is probably losing even more money now hence the lawsuits which would be difficult to win.

His co-investor is Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, so yeh, it’s all about free speech.

[impulse]

29 minutes ago, shdmn said:

They are free to advertise or not advertise wherever they want.  Best of luck clutching your pearls trying to sell this as a free speech thing or pretending it's illegal.

 

They're also free to raise or lower prices if they want. 

 

But if they do it as a group, it's illegal.

 

[placeholder]

9 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

They're also free to raise or lower prices if they want. 

 

But if they do it as a group, it's illegal.

 

Only if they're competitors. And there a huge and obvious difference between selling and buying.

[impulse]

5 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Only if they're competitors. And there a huge and obvious difference between selling and buying.

 

We'll see.  But I wouldn't bet against X's legal team.

 

[impulse]

40 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

His co-investor is Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, so yeh, it’s all about free speech.

 

Volkswagen Beetles were designed by Nazis.  And that's just as relevant.

 

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

We'll see.  But I wouldn't bet against X's legal team.

 

Really?!

 

https://www.socialmediatoday.com/news/x-formerly-twitter-loses-lawsuit-against-CCDH/711304/

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, impulse said:

 

Volkswagen Beetles were designed by Nazis.  And that's just as relevant.

 

You get the Godwin Gong.

[placeholder]

6 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

We'll see.  But I wouldn't bet against X's legal team.

 

Is this the same legal team that tried to extricate Musk from his deal to buy Twitter?

[fondue zoo]

 

So does this mean if he wins I can sue everybody for not buying sh🙊tty products from my online store?

 

 

Edited August 8 by fondue zoo

[placeholder]

27 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

We'll see.  But I wouldn't bet against X's legal team.

 

Because the merits of the case don't count when it comes to Team Elon!

[Berkshire]

1 hour ago, shdmn said:

So now captain free market hates the free market? 

Not only the free market, but free speech.  Musk hates free speech that he doesn't agree with.

[susanlea]

54 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

Not only the free market, but free speech.  Musk hates free speech that he doesn't agree with.

Sounds familiar?

[James105]

55 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

Not only the free market, but free speech.  Musk hates free speech that he doesn't agree with.

 

He might hate free speech that he doesn't agree with, but (and this is the important part) he doesn't stop that person from saying it unless it is actually against the law.    Why does the left have such a problem with this I wonder?  

[Berkshire]

5 minutes ago, James105 said:

 

He might hate free speech that he doesn't agree with, but (and this is the important part) he doesn't stop that person from saying it unless it is actually against the law.    Why does the left have such a problem with this I wonder?  

That's not true.  There's documented evidence of Musk shutting down accounts supporting the left.  Just recently, there was an account called "White Dudes for Harris" that raised millions.  Musk promptly shut it down....only to reinstate it after massive backlash.  I also recall the right organizing boycotts against corporations who support LGBTQ rights, as well as DEI.  And DeSantis in Florida with his "Don't say Gay" bill.  Many more examples of the right being against free speech much more than the left.

[Will B Good]

Tortious interference might the best avenue to pursue, but he has to prove that action was without any form of justification.....he will lose in the end I feel.

[frank83628]

4 hours ago, placeholder said:

If they were competitors of Twitter, it would be illegal. But they're not.

And, of course, at this juncture, it's kind of absurd to claim that Twitter is a free speech site when Musk has repeatedly silenced his critics and those whose political opinions he disagrees with.

like who?

[Will B Good]

3 minutes ago, frank83628 said:

like who?

Since Elon Musk took over Twitter, now rebranded as X, there have been multiple instances where accounts or individuals have been suspended, restricted, or had content moderated. Here are some notable examples:

 

1. Journalists: In December 2022, several journalists from major news organizations like CNN, The New York Times, and The Washington Post had their accounts suspended. Musk alleged that these journalists violated Twitter’s policies, particularly related to doxxing (sharing private information), although the specifics were often contested.

2. Prominent Users: High-profile users who have been known to criticize Musk or his policies have faced suspensions or restrictions. For example, the account @elonjet, which tracked the movements of Musk’s private jet using publicly available flight data, was suspended. This was despite Musk initially stating that his commitment to free speech extended even to that account.

3. Activists and Critics: Various activists and users who have been critical of Musk or his approach to content moderation on X have reported account suspensions or shadowbanning (where their content is less visible). This includes individuals who were vocal about Musk’s handling of misinformation and hate speech on the platform.

4. Parody Accounts: Accounts parodying Musk or others without clearly marking themselves as parodies have faced suspensions. Musk introduced new rules requiring parody accounts to explicitly state in their names that they are parodies to avoid misleading users.

[frank83628]

1 hour ago, James105 said:

 

He might hate free speech that he doesn't agree with, but (and this is the important part) he doesn't stop that person from saying it unless it is actually against the law.    Why does the left have such a problem with this I wonder?  

twitter was great in their eyes when the right was censored, now if become 'fair' to both they hate it

[Will B Good]

2 hours ago, James105 said:

 

He might hate free speech that he doesn't agree with, but (and this is the important part) he doesn't stop that person from saying it unless it is actually against the law.    Why does the left have such a problem with this I wonder?  

Since Elon Musk took over Twitter, now rebranded as X, there have been multiple instances where accounts or individuals have been suspended, restricted, or had content moderated. Here are some notable examples:

 

1. Journalists: In December 2022, several journalists from major news organizations like CNN, The New York Times, and The Washington Post had their accounts suspended. Musk alleged that these journalists violated Twitter’s policies, particularly related to doxxing (sharing private information), although the specifics were often contested.

2. Prominent Users: High-profile users who have been known to criticize Musk or his policies have faced suspensions or restrictions. For example, the account @elonjet, which tracked the movements of Musk’s private jet using publicly available flight data, was suspended. This was despite Musk initially stating that his commitment to free speech extended even to that account.

3. Activists and Critics: Various activists and users who have been critical of Musk or his approach to content moderation on X have reported account suspensions or shadowbanning (where their content is less visible). This includes individuals who were vocal about Musk’s handling of misinformation and hate speech on the platform.

4. Parody Accounts: Accounts parodying Musk or others without clearly marking themselves as parodies have faced suspensions. Musk introduced new rules requiring parody accounts to explicitly state in their names that they are parodies to avoid misleading users.

[frank83628]

1 minute ago, Will B Good said:

Since Elon Musk took over Twitter, now rebranded as X, there have been multiple instances where accounts or individuals have been suspended, restricted, or had content moderated. Here are some notable examples:

 

1. Journalists: In December 2022, several journalists from major news organizations like CNN, The New York Times, and The Washington Post had their accounts suspended. Musk alleged that these journalists violated Twitter’s policies, particularly related to doxxing (sharing private information), although the specifics were often contested.

2. Prominent Users: High-profile users who have been known to criticize Musk or his policies have faced suspensions or restrictions. For example, the account @elonjet, which tracked the movements of Musk’s private jet using publicly available flight data, was suspended. This was despite Musk initially stating that his commitment to free speech extended even to that account.

3. Activists and Critics: Various activists and users who have been critical of Musk or his approach to content moderation on X have reported account suspensions or shadowbanning (where their content is less visible). This includes individuals who were vocal about Musk’s handling of misinformation and hate speech on the platform.

4. Parody Accounts: Accounts parodying Musk or others without clearly marking themselves as parodies have faced suspensions. Musk introduced new rules requiring parody accounts to explicitly state in their names that they are parodies to avoid misleading users.

 

 doxing is against the rules and quite frankly a sly cowardly trait of some left journalists. they deserve to be removed.

elonjet was basically doxing too and a security risk for someone of Musks status.

Activists and critics..like who? got a list or was that a google copy & paste?

 

and prior to Musk buying it many conservative pages were consored, restricted or shadow banned.....but that didn't matter.