Elon Musk’s X is gearing up to add more defendants to its lawsuit against advertisers
Elon Musk owns X, which is planning to add more defendants to its lawsuit against advertisers.
Elon Musk’s X is getting ready to add more defendants to its lawsuit that accuses advertisers of illegally conspiring to boycott the platform.
X initially filed its lawsuit in a Texas court in August. The complaint alleges that members of the Global Alliance for Responsible Media, a now defunct initiative from the advertiser trade body the World Federation of Advertisers, colluded to “collectively withhold billions of dollars in advertising revenue” from X, formerly Twitter.
The current defendants in the case are the WFA, CVS Health, Mars, the energy company Orsted, and Twitch. (Twitch was added to the lawsuit later than the other defendants. Unilever was initially named as a defendant but reached an agreement with X and was dropped from the suit in October.)
A joint filing from X’s legal representatives and counsel for the defendants said X planned to file a second amended complaint “in which it will add multiple additional defendants.”
The filing said X would share a draft of its second complaint with the current defendants by January 20 and file it with the court by January 25.
Reps for X, CVS, Mars, Orsted, and Twitch didn’t respond to requests for comment.
A WFA spokesperson declined to comment. The WFA has previously said that it intends to defend itself in court and that it is confident the outcome will demonstrate that it adhered to competition law.
‘Brand safety’ is a growing political flash point
News that X could add more defendants to its suit comes at a fraught time for marketers and for the practice of “brand safety.”
Much of X’s lawsuit against GARM and its members was based on an investigation by the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Jim Jordan, into whether advertisers were illegally banding together to demonetize conservative platforms and voices in violation of antitrust law. Jordan continues to investigate advertisers’ and agencies’ work with GARM.
Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio has been investigating whether advertisers colluded to defund conservative media.
The Democratic staff of the House Judiciary Committee published their own report last month accusing Jordan of abusing his oversight power.
Their report argued that Jordan and his allies’ goal was “not to conduct antitrust oversight as they claim, but rather to silence criticism of harmful online content and those who promote it.”
Russell Dye, a spokesperson for the committee, said its investigation proved the collusion of left-wing advocates to secretly censor conservative speech.
“Those in the media and elsewhere that deny the collusion supported by clear documentation are themselves pushing disinformation,” Dye said in a statement.
GARM discontinued operations after X sued it, saying that as a small, nonprofit organization, it lacked the resources to fight the lawsuit.
The WFA is also facing a separate lawsuit from the video site Rumble, which accuses GARM, drinks giant Diageo, the ad agency holding company WPP, and its media arm GroupM of collectively agreeing to restrict advertising on social platforms including Rumble. In November, Texas’ attorney general, Ken Paxton, launched an investigation into the WFA over advertiser boycotts.
This month, Meta announced plans to shake up its content-moderation policies in the US, which had some advertisers worried that the tech giant was loosening its brand-safety standards. But unlike in the past, there hasn’t been any public suggestion that brands intend to pull ad dollars from Meta in response. Advertising insiders told B17 that it was partly a reflection of how reliant marketers had become on Meta, but also that advertisers had become more cautious about publicly criticizing or boycotting platforms and media given the political environment.
