X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, has filed a lawsuit against a group of major advertisers, accusing them of orchestrating an “illegal boycott” that has severely impacted its revenue.
This legal move targets renowned companies such as Unilever, Mars, CVS, Ørsted, and numerous other brands, alleging that they collectively withheld billions of dollars in advertising through the World Federation of Advertisers (WFA) Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM) initiative.
Background: Musk’s Vision Meets Advertisers’ Resistance
Tekedia Mini-MBA edition 16 (Feb 10 – May 3, 2025) opens registrations; register today for early bird discounts.
Tekedia AI in Business Masterclass opens registrations here.
Join Tekedia Capital Syndicate and invest in Africa’s finest startups here.
The tension between X and its advertisers can be traced back to Elon Musk’s controversial acquisition of Twitter in late 2022. Musk, a staunch advocate of free speech, implemented sweeping changes aimed at fostering open dialogue on the platform. These changes included revising content moderation policies, reinstating previously banned accounts, and promoting a more laissez-faire approach to user expression.
While Musk’s vision was hailed by proponents of free speech, it sparked a significant backlash from advertisers concerned about their brands appearing alongside potentially harmful or controversial content. The advertising industry, wary of the platform’s new direction, began to reassess its relationship with X. This scrutiny culminated in a series of events that have now led to a courtroom showdown.
At the core of X’s lawsuit is GARM, an industry initiative under the WFA. Companies participating in GARM commit to withholding advertising from social media platforms that fail to comply with the alliance’s safety standards.
X alleges that GARM’s actions constituted an organized boycott designed to force the platform into compliance, thereby endangering its financial stability.
“The evidence and facts are on our side,” declared X CEO Linda Yaccarino in a video statement. “They conspired to boycott X, which threatens our ability to thrive in the future. That puts your global Town Square — the one place that you can express yourself freely and openly — at long-term risk.”
The lawsuit draws upon a July 10th report from the House Judiciary Committee, which criticized the WFA and GARM’s conduct as “collusive” and aimed at demonetizing disfavored content. This report prompted House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan to demand explanations from 40 companies associated with GARM about their alleged boycotts of right-wing media outlets like The Joe Rogan Experience, The Daily Wire, Breitbart, and Fox News.
Elon Musk, never one to shy away from a fight, has encouraged other companies affected by similar boycotts to consider legal action. He hinted at potential criminal liability under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, a statute typically used against organized crime.
The Advertisers’ Defense
Advertisers’ ability to choose where to place their ads is protected by the First Amendment, complicating X’s legal position. Watchdog groups like Check My Ads argue that advertisers have the right to withhold funds from platforms that promote hate speech or conspiracy theories, aligning their spending with their corporate values and safety standards.
X seeks a court declaration that the advertisers’ actions were illegal and is requesting damages to be determined at trial. This lawsuit is part of a broader pattern of legal battles initiated by Musk, who recently dropped a lawsuit against OpenAI, only to sue them again over allegations of manipulation in the founding of the nonprofit.
The lawsuit not only highlights the immediate conflict between X and its advertisers but also underscores the unrelenting struggle over control of online discourse. As people like Musk push for a platform free from traditional content moderation constraints, advertisers push back, seeking to protect their brands from association with objectionable content.
Thus, the lawsuit will serve as a litmus test for the future of digital advertising and content regulation. The outcome could reshape the dynamics between social media platforms and advertisers, setting new precedents for how businesses navigate the delicate balance between free speech and brand safety.
This means the court’s decision will have far-reaching implications, not just for X and its advertisers, but for the entire digital industry.