Elon Musk is suing Mars and Unilever over the X boycott.
Elon Musk's X/Twitter is suing a number of big businesses and advertisers, claiming that they have agreed to "boycott" the website illegally.
It has filed a lawsuit in a Texas judge against the food behemoths Mars and Unilever, the for-profit healthcare provider CVS Health, and the renewable energy business Orsted, in addition to a trade group known as the World Federation of Advertisers (WFA).
X asserts that they have cost it "billions of dollars" in income. The complaint is unlikely to succeed, according to legal experts, because it will be difficult to prove any company coordination or agreement.
The case concerns the collapse in revenue from advertising that occurred in 2022, shortly after Mr. Musk purchased X, which was then known as Twitter.
Because of worries that the platform's new owner was not taking online material removal seriously enough, some businesses had been hesitant to place advertisements on it.
The year following Mr. Musk's acquisition of the former Twitter, advertising revenue fell by over 50%. "When the marketplace of ideas is constricted, people are harm," stated Linda Yaccarino, CEO of X. What is monetized shouldn't be monopolized by a little number of individuals.
" The company's "ability to thrive in the future" was put in jeopardy, she claimed, by the purported "boycott". "We tried being nice for two years and got nothing but empty words," tweeted Elon Musk. It's war right now." Requests for comments have not received a response from the WFA or the implicated companies.
Legal professionals have expressed doubts about the case's likelihood of success. "Generally speaking, a boycott driven by political reasons does not violate antitrust laws.
According to Bill Baer, the former assistant attorney general for the Ministry of Justice's (ICC antitrust division within former US President Barack Obama, "it is protected speech under our First Amendment."
Lecturer of law at the University at Buffalo Christine Bartholomew, a competition specialist, stated that X would have "no small hurdle" in proving there was a "actual agreement to boycott supported by each advertiser."
The social networking platform cannot compel businesses to purchase space for advertising on it, even in the event that the lawsuit is successful. In addition to a court order prohibiting any further attempts to collude to withhold advertising spending, X is requesting undisclosed damages.
"The problem of illicit or dangerous content"
X's lawsuit claims that by adhering to safety guidelines established by the WFA's Worldwide Alliance for Sustainable Media (Garm), the accused companies unjustly withheld spending. The organization's declared goal is to " assist the industry address the problem of illegal or harmful contents on digital media platforms and its monetisation via advertisements" .
X contends that by doing this, the businesses violated US antitrust, or opposition, law by acting against their own financial self-interests in a conspiracy against the platform. The boycott, according to Vanderbilt University instructor Rebecca Haw Allensworth, "was truly attempting to make an announcement about X's policies and about their companies".
"That's legal by the First Amendment," she replied. In its case, X claimed that it has implemented brand-safety guidelines that "meet or exceed" Garm's requirements and are similar to those of its rivals.
X is now a "less effective competitor" in the market for digital advertising, according to the report. Similar allegations were made by the right-wing influencer-favored video-sharing platform Rumble in a separate lawsuit filed on Tuesday against the World Federation of Advertisers.
