This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.
X’s attempt to prosecute the World Federation of Advertisers for allegedly organizing a boycott of the app has been rejected by a federal court judge in Texas, ending the platform’s effort to pressure ad partners to come back to the app.
As reported by Reuters, U.S. District Judge Jane Boyle ruled that X failed to prove that the WFA sought to enact a politically-motivated boycott of the company, ending an 18-month legal battle over X’s ad woes.
Back in 2024, X launched legal action against the Global Alliance for Responsible Media, of which WFA is the chief coordinator, along with selected GARM members, over what X alleged had been “a group boycott by competing advertisers of one of the most popular social media platforms in the United States.”
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.
X’s attempt to prosecute the World Federation of Advertisers for allegedly organizing a boycott of the app has been rejected by a federal court judge in Texas, ending the platform’s effort to pressure ad partners to come back to the app.
As reported by Reuters, U.S. District Judge Jane Boyle ruled that X failed to prove that the WFA sought to enact a politically-motivated boycott of the company, ending an 18-month legal battle over X’s ad woes.
Back in 2024, X launched legal action against the Global Alliance for Responsible Media, of which WFA is the chief coordinator, along with selected GARM members, over what X alleged had been “a group boycott by competing advertisers of one of the most popular social media platforms in the United States.”
Then X CEO Linda Yaccarino posted a video on X about the legal action at the time, in which she criticized the alleged coordinated activity, saying that “people are hurt when the marketplace of ideas is restricted.”
The main impetus for the filing stemmed from a congressional appearance by political commentator Ben Shapiro in July 2024, who testified before the U.S. Congress, claiming that GARM, a collective of advertisers who work together to challenge harmful content online, also colluded in order to censor certain speech.
In response to these claims, X sought to recoup ad dollars from GARM members who participated in the alleged boycott, including Mars, CVS Health and Colgate-Palmolive. As reported by CNBC, in August 2024, the WFA suspended the GARM program due to X’s legal action.
But Judge Boyle has dismissed the case, saying X failed to demonstrate that it had suffered any harm under federal antitrust laws.
Throughout the trial, representatives for WFA claimed that advertisers had independently chosen not to advertise on X due to concerns about the platform’s commitment to brand safety, stemming from changes following Elon Musk’s 2022 takeover. Musk cut up to 80% of the company’s staff, including many trust and safety employees, following his purchase of the company, which was then known as Twitter. At the same time, Musk refused to agree to advertiser demands for increased assurance of brand safety, telling potential ad partners to “go f--- themselves”if they didn’t agree with his approach.
Musk’s public statements contradict the case that X had suffered from a politically motivated boycott. And with the platform still struggling to win back advertiser trust, the balance of evidence suggests that its problems are due to advertiser concerns about its change in approach, rather than an ideologically motivated and organized campaign.
With this in mind, it’s hard to argue that brands wouldn’t be concerned about ad placement.
In this case, it seemed that Musk was resorting to legal “lawfare” to pressure advertisers to return to the platform, but that’s clearly failed to drive more ad investment in the business.
