WhatJobs.com’s Post

X files antitrust lawsuit against major brands and ad industry group X has filed a federal antitrust lawsuit against an advertising industry coalition, including major companies like CVS Health, Mars, Orsted, and Unilever, accusing them of using their influence to discriminate against X, leading to an ad boycott unfairly. This lawsuit is part of a larger effort by conservative lawmakers and media companies to challenge the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM). Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, the lawsuit claims that GARM and several unnamed collaborators conspired to withhold billions of dollars in advertising revenue from Twitter, now X Corp. X's advertising revenue has significantly declined since Elon Musk acquired the company in 2022, with expected earnings of around $2 billion this year. The lawsuit is part of X's broader strategy to address its advertising challenges through legal action. Despite adopting brand safety standards similar to its competitors, X argues that the boycott's effects persist. It is unlikely that Congress will get involved in this industry dispute, leaving the court to decide whether to proceed with the case or dismiss it. https://lnkd.in/dhpNAg88? Platform: Axios Author: Sara Fischer #twitterx #adindustry #antitrustlawsuit #lawsuit #GlobalAllianceforResponsibleMedia #socialmediaplatform #socialmedia #unilever #cvshealth #media #technews #business

Elon just put everyone on notice.... he's about to start SUING after what he learned from Congress and Ben Shapiro. This is OUTSTANDING!! Musk: "Having seen the evidence unearthed today by Congress, 𝕏 has no choice but to file suit against the perpetrators and collaborators in the advertising boycott racket. Hopefully, some states will consider criminal prosecution." In this clip, watch as Shapiro TEARS into the "censorship cartel" in a heated Congressional testimony... then REPOST and amplify his voice!! “We're in the midst of a trust crisis in the world of media, which is because so many in the legacy media have lied in order to preserve left-leaning narratives. To take just the most recent example, we were told by the legacy media that President Biden was just fine. For years, anyone who questioned his health and mental fitness was tr-fficking in cheap fakes. And then President Biden went out and engaged in a full-scale mental collapse on stage in front of hundreds of millions of people. “So we can see why Americans, at least Americans who are not Democrats, do not trust the media. The question isn't really why the legacy media have lost Americans' trust. We know that answer. The question is why, despite that loss of trust, the legacy media continue to gain share in the advertising market. And the answer is simple. There is, in fact, an informal pressure system created by Democratic legislators, this White House, legacy media, advertisers, and pseudo-objective brand safety organizations. That system guarantees that advertising dollars flow only to left-wing media brands. ...“Companies targeted by GARM, like the Daily Wire, Breitbart, Fox News, and so many others, reach hundreds of millions of people with opinions and beliefs long established as within the mainstream of American conservative thought. GARM and its members have no respect for the beliefs of those people. They would like them marginalized or squashed. It's time to stand up for the First Amendment in this Congress. ....“We all know what these government actors, what some people in this room are doing. You're using the tacit threat of government action to compel private companies to throttle viewpoints you don't particularly like. The First Amendment was not designed to enable workarounds by elected officials. It was directed at Congress, at you. And you're abdicating your fundamental duty when you exert pressure on private companies to censor speech. Some in this room have been doing just that for years. We in the non-legacy media have been feeling the effects. In the name of the Constitution and the name of democracy, this should stop.” #thinblueline #lawenforcement

I've never been a huge fan of Ben, though that is entirely the point. I don't have to be. Free speech means people you like, don't like, and could care less about all get the same treatment. The big issue I am seeing is that this is just the natural course of what has been brewing for a long time. The elected officials are puppets and those who aren't are shut down and stripped of power. There is a massive machine of elected and unelected personnel who believe they know what is best for everyone. If we could all start treating people as competent adults, the world would be a better place. I don't need you to shield me from whatever you deem evil or bad. We the people will be the judge of that and our free market system will tell the tale. The system is self correcting if you stop bailing out failures and stop regulating everything. The consumer chooses the best product and ideas/speech are most certainly products. When a competitor enters the arena, you have to prove your worth or suffer the consequences. When people choose better products that align with their values, you must let the other company fail. It is the only way to reach our full potential.

This exactly how the government chooses winners and losers to meet the government narratives such as the green initiatives that is bankrupting America, and the world economic reform, so they can continue to control our finances through taxation and inflation; as if either of those are any different.

Social Media, Newspapers, TV, and magazines are Businesses that live of publicity or they can’t continue to provide their services. Then there are private and public payments to let citizens know about what they want to be sold, promoted, etc. There must be a Kind of dignity applied, especially on the Media Platforms to Filter not the truth but to protect the viewers, users or readers from evident fake, unmoral, or addictive/abusive contents. If the State just gave the public money exclusively to their Media, incondicional friends, shutting down the others. This is a Criminal act and offense. As is a Crime how the Social Media, tries to create a domesticated follower, to offer him as meat in the market of publicity. When business is just business, and then a person you don’t see for a Long time asks you how you are doing, and your answer is I have or I make a lot of money, shows not just our weakness but a picture of our society. Oscar Bellina Lishner @oscarbellina

X is suing major advertisers like Unilever, Mars, CVS Health, Orsted, and the World Federation of Advertisers for allegedly conspiring to boycott the platform, leading to billions in lost ad revenue. The lawsuit follows a decline in advertising due to concerns over brand safety. X seeks damages and an end of the alleged boycott, legal experts seem to believe the case might struggle against First Amendment protections. #X #Advertising #BrandSafety https://lnkd.in/eiJQQJYV

Using courts to bully and intimidate is straight out of the authoritarian playbook - especially when it concerns free expression and choice. The X lawsuit against WFA and advertisers argues that the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM) brand safety standards - standards that were put in place for the safety of consumers - were anticompetitive because advertisers left X in masse. This lawsuit would be laughable if the bullying didn’t work. Unfortunately, today we see how lawsuits can be used to chill protected activity, like boycotts and organized collective action. Today, advertisers lost a resource in GARM - but Musk and Jordan want something more. They want advertisers to not have the choice - they want their hate fulled rhetoric to be supported financially. Don’t fall for their version of the “marketplace of ideas.” https://lnkd.in/gsUKfEkA

X Corp [+ Elon Musk] v Global Advertisers- Antitrust Complaint, Texas, 6 August 2024... Complaint: "1. This is an antitrust action relating to a group boycott by competing advertisers of one of the most popular social media platforms in the USA..." "2. Acting with and through a World Federation of Advertisers (“WFA”) initiative called the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (“GARM”), the Defendants conspired..to collectively withhold billions of dollars in advertising revenue from Twitter, Inc. (“Twitter,” now X Corp.). Concerned that Twitter might  deviate from certain brand safety standards for advertising on social media platforms set through GARM, the conspirators collectively acted to enforce Twitter’s adherence to those standards through the boycott..." "3. As a condition of membership, GARM’s members agree to enforce GARM’s brand safety standards, including by withholding advertising from social media platforms deemed by GARM to be non-compliant with the brand safety standards. When Elon Musk and other investors acquired Twitter in November 2022..GARM conveyed to its members its concerns about Twitter’s compliance with GARM’s standards, triggering the massive advertiser boycott that followed..." "4. Pursuant to the conspiracy, major brand advertisers, including the advertiser Defendants... agreed to and did, abruptly and in lockstep, boycott Twitter by discontinuing entirely or substantially reducing their previously substantial advertising purchases from Twitter...These actions were all against the unilateral self-interest of the advertisers; they made economic sense only in furtherance of a conspiracy performed in the confidence that competing advertisers were doing the same..." "7. The conduct of Defendants and their co-conspirators is a naked restraint of trade without countervailing benefits to competition or consumers..." "In a competitive market, each social media platform would set the brand safety standards that are optimal for that platform and for its users, and advertisers would unilaterally select the platforms on which they advertise. Social media platforms that select efficient brand safety standards will thrive; platforms that select inefficient standards will lag behind. Through this competitive process, platforms will discover and adopt the brand safety practices that best promote consumer welfare. But collective action among competing advertisers to dictate brand safety standards to be applied by social media platforms shortcuts the competitive process and allows the collective views of a group of advertisers with market power to override the interests of consumers. The Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, [see https://lnkd.in/etQ8qcdg ] does not allow this..." Hmmm lots of extremely interesting + contentious material + leaps of logic here... Musk at his combative best... https://lnkd.in/eyKSgHMi

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 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, and 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 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'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. By Karan Karayi Link – https://lnkd.in/dYRJJf8K #ElonMusk #X #Twitter #DigitalAdvertising #GARM #AntitrustLawsuit #BrandSafety #LindaYaccarino #USHouseJudiciaryCommittee #SocialMedia #IBM #Disney #Lionsgate #ContentModeration #AdvertisingIndustry #TechNews #MarksmenDaily #TeamMarksmen #inFocus

Elon Musk's Company X Files Lawsuit Against Major Advertisers Elon Musk's company, X, has taken legal action against prominent advertisers, including Unilever, Mars, CVS, and Ørsted, alleging a conspiracy to withhold billions in ad revenue. The lawsuit, filed in Texas, follows a substantial decline in advertising revenue on X (formerly Twitter) since Musk's acquisition in 2022. This move has targeted members of the World Federation of Advertisers' Global Alliance of Responsible Media (GARM) initiative. Amidst skepticism from advertising professionals and legal experts who view the lawsuit as unfounded, it's notable that GARM does not dictate where advertisers allocate their funds, with US advertisers being safeguarded by the First Amendment. Despite this, X remains a member of GARM, a platform that formulates frameworks addressing issues like hate speech and misinformation. The legal tussle is unfolding within the backdrop of a Republican-led investigation helmed by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan. The focus of the inquiry is to determine if GARM members unlawfully collaborated to demonetize conservative platforms. Notably, this investigation has already prompted subpoenas and congressional hearings involving prominent companies. These legal confrontations and investigations are placing a strain on GARM's resources and potentially hampering future initiatives. Observers from the advertising industry express concerns that the ongoing actions could impede GARM's operations and make companies more apprehensive about participating in similar initiatives. Overall, these legal battles are indicative of a broader trend where lawsuits and investigations with right-leaning implications are on the rise, impacting not only GARM but also academic researchers and media watchdogs. These entities are now facing heightened legal scrutiny, depleting their resources and affecting their capacity for research and advocacy. Analysts have mixed reactions to Elon Musk's company, X, suing prominent advertisers like Unilever and Mars. The lawsuit accuses these companies of conspiring to withhold billions in ad revenue, which X claims is an illegal boycott organized by the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM). Some industry experts view the lawsuit as unfounded and believe it could strain GARM's resources and hamper future initiatives. Legal experts also highlight that GARM does not control advertiser decisions and that US advertisers are protected by the First Amendment. This legal action is part of a broader trend of right-leaning lawsuits impacting various organizations, adding to the complexity of the advertising industry's regulatory environment. # Thank you Tatiana Silva for your submission!