X Sues Advertisers Over Alleged Illegal Boycott Costing Billions
Elon Musk and his company X, formerly known as Twitter, have initiated a high-profile lawsuit against several major advertisers, alleging an illegal boycott that has significantly harmed the company financially. The lawsuit, announced by X CEO Linda Yaccarino, targets the World Federation of Advertisers (WFA), its subsidiary Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM), and several of its prominent members, including CVS Health, Mars, and Unilever.
The lawsuit follows a revealing report by the House Judiciary Committee titled “GARM’s Harm,” which outlines the alleged illegal activities of these advertising giants. The report claims that the WFA, which controls an estimated 90% of global marketing spending amounting to $1 trillion annually, orchestrated a boycott against X and other companies. This boycott, according to the report, has cost X billions of dollars.
In a post on X, Yaccarino expressed her astonishment at the findings, stating, “I thought I had seen everything.” She highlighted the investigation’s evidence of an organized boycott aimed at undermining X. “The illegal behavior of these organizations and their executives cost X billions of dollars,” Yaccarino noted, emphasizing the severity of the situation.
Elon Musk, sharing Yaccarino’s post, declared, “We tried peace for 2 years, now it is war.” This statement marks a significant escalation in the conflict between X and its advertisers, reflecting Musk’s frustration with the prolonged financial impact of the alleged boycott.
The House report detailed how GARM and its members employed both direct and indirect tactics to organize boycotts and demonetize disfavored platforms, content creators, and news organizations. These actions, according to the report, were designed to limit consumer choices and stifle free speech.
BlazeTV’s James Poulos commented on the longstanding tension between Musk and X’s advertisers, attributing it to a deeper ideological conflict. “Rather than mild-mannered normies afraid of controversial content on X, advertisers operate as a cartel of far-left propagandists, reaping profits from taxpayers on government contracts while conspiring to silence free speech at odds with their radical ideologies,” Poulos stated.
Poulos further criticized the undue influence of corporate cartels on online discourse and national politics. “No group, whatever its beliefs, should wield such control over the bounds of our words and thoughts on the most fundamental issues,” he said, advocating for the use of antitrust laws to protect against such overreach.
The House Judiciary Committee’s report also included internal emails from the advertising alliance, with one email from GARM head Robert Rakowitz allegedly boasting about X’s revenue being “80% below forecasts” due to the boycott. Rakowitz later claimed the email was a “self-effacing joke.”
CVS Health, Mars, Orsted, and Unilever have not yet commented on the lawsuit or the allegations. They did not respond to requests for statements from the New York Post or Fox News.
As this legal battle unfolds, it highlights the intense and often contentious relationship between major tech platforms and the advertisers that fund them. The outcome of this lawsuit could have significant implications for the advertising industry and the regulation of corporate influence on digital platforms.
