Elon Musk’s company X, formerly known as Twitter, has filed a lawsuit against several major advertisers, accusing them of an illegal boycott that has allegedly cost the company billions. The legal action comes after a House Judiciary Committee report detailed the alleged activities of the World Federation of Advertisers (WFA) and its subsidiary, the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM).
The report, “GARM’s Harm,” reveals that the WFA, which controls 90% of global marketing spending, coordinated a boycott against X. This group represents some of the largest companies in the world, including Disney and Coca-Cola. According to the report, the boycott has caused substantial financial harm to X.
X CEO Linda Yaccarino announced the lawsuit in a post on X, stating, “I thought I had seen everything.” She emphasized the severe impact of the alleged boycott, noting, “The illegal behavior of these organizations and their executives cost X billions of dollars.”
Elon Musk shared Yaccarino’s announcement with a provocative message: “We tried peace for 2 years, now it is war.” This statement underscores the seriousness of the allegations and Musk’s determination to take decisive action.
The lawsuit names CVS Health, Mars, Orsted, and Unilever as defendants, along with GARM and the WFA. The House report detailed how GARM and its members organized boycotts and used various tactics to demonetize and limit certain platforms and content creators.
BlazeTV’s James Poulos commented on the escalating conflict, suggesting that advertisers act as a cartel to control online discourse. “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.
The report also included internal emails from GARM head Robert Rakowitz, who allegedly boasted about X’s significant revenue shortfall since the boycott began. Rakowitz later claimed this was a “self-effacing joke.”
As the lawsuit moves forward, it highlights the ongoing battle between tech platforms and the advertising industry. The outcome could have far-reaching implications for the regulation of corporate influence and the future of digital advertising.
