Posted on 08/06/2024 9:28:13 AM PDT by Miami Rebel
X on Tuesday filed a lawsuit against the Global Alliance for Responsible Media, a coalition of major advertisers, claiming that it had violated antitrust laws by coordinating with brands to dissuade them from spending money on the social media platform.
The suit, filed in federal court in Texas, claims that the coalition, known as GARM, “conspired” with leading brands, including CVS, Unilever and the Danish energy company Ørsted to “collectively withhold billions of dollars in advertising revenue” that were owed to X, then known as Twitter, in the wake of Elon Musk’s takeover of the social media company in 2022.
“The illegal behavior of these organizations and their executives cost X billions of dollars,” wrote Linda Yaccarino, X’s chief executive, in an open letter to advertisers. “People are hurt when the marketplace of ideas is undermined and some viewpoints are not funded over others as part of an illegal boycott.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
How can advertisers be forced to spend money on any medium?
On November 29 last year at a New York Times Dealbook conference, Musk in an interview with David Faber, told brands that had abandoned X, "Don't advertise. Go f--- yourself." After that, they were supposed to advertise on X????
GARM Exposed: House Judiciary Report Says Ad Coalition Likely Broke Law To Silence Conservatives
July 10, 2024
In The News
Brent Scher
Daily Wire
A congressional investigation has uncovered overt political bias in the leadership of an advertising coalition that’s being used to control online speech, according to a House Judiciary Committee report released on Wednesday ahead of a hearing on whether advertisers are violating federal competition laws.
The report on the Global Alliance for Responsible Media, or GARM, accuses the group of attempting to influence what content appears online by starving disfavored content, or even entire platforms, of advertising dollars needed to survive. Internal emails obtained by the committee found that GARM’s leadership strategized how to use the coalition against news outlets, including The Daily Wire, with opposing views from its leadership.
How can advertisers be forced to spend money on any medium?
—
Not being a lawyer my take on it is not that they are not advertising on X but they are in a conspiracy to keep others from advertising.
I am sure Musk’s lawyers know what they are doing.
Although GARM claims not to impact content moderation policies, or the rules that dictate what content can appear online, the Committee’s investigation shows that GARM’s efforts are aimed at removing and defunding certain content and voices, including:
GARM directed its members to boycott Twitter after Elon Musk acquired the company. Although Rob Rakowitz, the leader of GARM, denied having done so in his transcribed interview before the Committee, a GARM member documented discussions about the boycott, noting that the company had pulled advertisements from Twitter based on GARM’s recommendations.
GroupM, a GARM Steer Team member, attempted to pressure Spotify into censoring Joe Rogan due to his views on the COVID-19 vaccine. GroupM even asked Spotify how it could reconcile being a member of GARM with its stance against misinformation and threatened to halt advertising across Spotify if the platform did not take action against Joe Rogan.
Unilever, a GARM Steer Team member, sought to have a Trump campaign ad flagged as misinformation, aiming to effectively remove the ad from the platform. Facebook, however, maintains a policy of not fact-checking political candidates to ensure Americans can see speech from elected officials and hold them accountable. GARM’s founder criticized this policy of transparency as “honestly reprehensible.”
GARM documents obtained by the Committee show an anti-conservative bias that permeates GARM’s board of directors, known as its Steer Team. When discussing conservative media outlets such as The Daily Wire, Fox News, and Breitbart, employees from GroupM stated that they hated those outlets’ ideology and even discussed placing these outlets on GroupM’s exclusion lists.
It says X was owed billions of dollars. Was this for ads they had run on Twitter but refused to pay for, after Musk took over? That’s what it sounds like to me, anyway.
It is not forced to spend that is the issue, the group pressured other organizations to NOT spend money on advertising, pretty much the definition of a trust.
The scope of antitrust laws, are to insure a organization or group of organizations do not interfere via monopolistic practices in an enterprise’s freedom to conduct business, and to protect smaller businesses, communities and consumers.
A group structured prevent others from using a service that can benefit materially from that harassment qualifies as a trust.
“How can advertisers be forced to spend money on any medium?”
They can’t be *forced*, but the various anti-trust laws make it illegal to *agree* to freeze someone out. That’s illegal collusion.
This is the same kind of stunt Rockfeller used to pull. Although, in this case it is more political because Elon Musk isn't a Globalist.
I'm with you on that, unless it is X's position that the boycott defaulted on existing signed contracts.
It is illegal to boycott. Your own company can withhold spending, but it is illegal to call on others to do so and leverage that demand. It is an ant-trust position.
“...pretty much the definition of a trust....”
In NO way is that the definition of a trust, and I defy you to prove otherwise. The only way anti-trust would have any bearing would be if the alternative advertising mediums coalesced to suppress X either by saying, “If you advertise with them you cannot advertise with us,” of if they slashed ad rates in a concerted fashion to undercut X’s rates.
Obviously this is ludicrous because (a) there are THOUSANDS of alternative mediums and (b) it isn’t an alternative medium that is being sued but rather the advertisers themselves.
This would be as if Bud Lite chose to sue not the people calling for its boycott but rather the customers who stopped buying their six-packs.
People campaigning for boycotts of ANY product are free to do so, and those who listen to them are free to stop buying the boycotted product.
These were advertisers that represented other companies. Companies rarely engage advertising on their own. They hire these third-party advertising management companies to negotiate contracts with mediums such as X and handle the advertising.
What these companies did was tell client companies that they will not advertise for them on any medium if they also want to advertise on X.
Since there are only a handful of these advertising companies that are nothing but a monopoly, that is the basis of the lawsuit.
Here is an example of an anti-boycott law. This one is Colorado’s.
Section 8-2-112 - Unlawful to publish notice of boycott
It is unlawful to print or circulate any notice of boycott, boycott card, sticker, banner, sign, or dodger publishing or declaring that a boycott or ban exists, or has existed or is contemplated against any person, firm, or corporation doing a lawful business, or publish the name of any judicial officer or other public officer upon any notice of boycott, boycott card, sticker, banner, sign, or other similar list because of any lawful act or decision of such official. A person who violates this section commits a petty offense.
hold on just a second, wasn’t it elon himself that told the advertisers to go f themselves, and don’t advertise if they don’t like the content on twitter/X.
“It is not forced to spend that is the issue, the group pressured other organizations to NOT spend money on advertising, pretty much the definition of a trust.”
Similar, I suppose, to companies colluding for price-fixing.
“It says X was owed billions of dollars.”
That’s not an anti-trust complaint.
That is NOT collusion.
Collusion would be other media outlets preventing advertisers from spending money on X.
“It is illegal to boycott.”
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Okay, then a court can order you to buy a six-pack of Bud Light.
Are you really that stupid??
You are so stupid that you can’t tell the difference between your own personal choices and you forcing others to follow your choices??
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.