Latest news with #GARM
Axios
23-05-2025
- Business
- Axios
FTC investigating liberal watchdog group Media Matters
The Federal Trade Commission is investigating the liberal group Media Matters over claims that it and other media advocacy groups coordinated advertising boycotts of Elon Musk's X, Media Matters president Angelo Carusone confirmed in a statement Thursday. Why it matters: Musk and conservatives have been targeting advertising groups for months as part of a broader effort to determine whether the ad market writ large is biased against them. X sued Media Matters for defamation in 2023 for a report it publicly released that showed ads on X running next to pro-Nazi content. X claimed the report contributed to an advertiser exodus. Last year, X filed a federal antitrust lawsuit against the World Federation of Advertisers, a major advertising trade group, and its industry coalition called the Global Alliance for Responsible Media. The lawsuit proved effective as WFA discontinued GARM a few months later. What they're saying:"The Trump administration has been defined by naming right-wing media figures to key posts and abusing the power of the federal government to bully political opponents and silence critics," said Carusone. "It's clear that's exactly what's happening here, given Media Matters' history of holding those same figures to account. These threats won't work; we remain steadfast to our mission." The FTC did not respond to a request for comment. Zoom out: The investigation, first reported by Reuters, signals an escalation of tensions between the advertising community and conservatives. Last year, The Daily Wire, a conservative media company, sent letters to major corporations asking them to "reject" GARM, arguing it colluded with agencies, brands and tech platforms "to demonetize conservative media outlets." The Daily Wire testified in a hearing about the matter last summer, after conservatives leading the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing about complaints GARM was colluding with ad-buying giant GroupM to discourage clients from buying ads in the Daily Wire because of its conservative politics. What to watch: X Corp. has a mixed record when it comes to lawsuits against research and advocacy groups.
Miami Herald
19-05-2025
- Business
- Miami Herald
Elon Musk hit with scathing words from former X clients
With all the problems Tesla is facing, it can be easy to forget that Elon Musk is fighting other battles. He's currently in the throes of a vicious lawsuit involving one of his other companies. When Musk finalized his acquisition of Twitter, now called X, in October 2022, it sparked a backlash that extended beyond the platform's users. Many people deleted their accounts in protest of Musk's beliefs on certain topics, but some companies also took a stand against him. Don't miss the move: Subscribe to TheStreet's free daily newsletter In the months that followed his takeover, a large number of companies halted advertising on X amid reports of offensive content and declining user activity. This included prominent companies such as Lego, Shell, and Nestlé, to name just a few. Musk responded with a lawsuit against these former clients, alleging that they had illegally boycotted his platform. However, the defendants have hit back with some strong words. Even before Musk assumed control of what would become X, some people raised concerns about what it would mean for the platform. For some, it meant a likely mass exodus of users, as many people have expressed concern that Musk would create a hostile environment, despite his claims to support free speech. Related: Elon Musk gets devastating news as the 'anti-Tesla' catches on It didn't take long for advertising clients to start walking away, though, nor for Musk to feel the impact. One year later, the platform's advertising revenue had reportedly plunged by roughly $1.5 billion, described by a source as a "significant slump from prior years." From Musk's perspective, the decision to stop advertising on X seemed to be a deliberate conspiracy orchestrated by a group of companies with illicit intentions. As he put it, their actions resulted in X ending up "a less effective competitor to other social media platforms in the sale of digital advertising and in competing for user engagement on its platform." In July 2024, Musk posted to X that his company would be filing a lawsuit against the companies that had boycotted advertising on his platform, saying he hoped some states would consider prosecuting them criminally. Musk's case alleges that these companies had joined an initiative titled Global Alliance of Responsible Media (GARM), which could be seen as conspiring to "collectively withhold billions of dollars in advertising." Created in 2019 to promote digital safety as part of the World Federation of Advertisers (WFA), GARM has not been active since August 2024. The companies on the other end of Musk's lawsuit recently filed a joint motion to have the case dismissed quickly. They described his legal action against them as "an attempt to use the courthouse to win back the business X lost in the free market when it disrupted its own business and alienated many of its customers." More Elon Musk News: Elon Musk's robotaxi ambitions hit with major roadblockPalantir leader has shocking take on Elon Musk and DOGEBill Gates makes a controversial accusation about Elon Musk In this blunt statement, the companies allege that Musk is responsible for the business his company lost and that their decisions to stop advertising on his platform are perfectly justified in a free market economy. In the most recent filing, these companies asserted that the decision to stop advertising on X is protected by their First Amendment rights. It notes that while antitrust law does protect competition within a market, it doesn't protect companies like X from competition, despite what Musk seems intent on claiming. Related: Elon Musk reveals plans to do exactly what he's been warned against Business Insider provides further context on the challenge to Musk's lawsuit that these brands have issued, stating: "In Wednesday's filing, the WFA and the group of brands rejected the accusations of a conspiracy and said that advertisers - including non-GARM members - made their own individual decisions about pulling ad spend from X. It noted that X's own lawsuit said just 18 of GARM's more than 100 members stopped advertising on the platform." It remains uncertain whether the case will be dismissed or Musk's lawsuit against these companies will proceed. However, given the precedent set by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which protects individual liberties, it seems unlikely that a judge will rule in Musk's favor. Related: Veteran fund manager unveils eye-popping S&P 500 forecast The Arena Media Brands, LLC THESTREET is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc.
Yahoo
16-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Furious Former Twitter Advertisers Tell Elon Musk They've Had Enough of His Tantrums
Elon Musk's social media company X-formerly-Twitter sued several major advertising brands last year, accusing them of conspiring to "collectively withhold billions of dollars in advertising." It's an easily debunked claim that flatly ignores the extremely hostile environment the mercurial CEO has created on the platform, with hate speech and disinformation running rampant. Now, advertisers singled out by Musk are ready to hit back and are asking a judge to dismiss Musk's lawsuit. As Business Insider reports, the companies accused the richest man in the world in a joint motion of trying to "win back the business X lost in the free market when it disrupted its own business and alienated many of its customers." Advertisers started running for the hills after Musk took over the platform in late 2022, bringing with him a groundswell of hate speech, misinformation, and racist rhetoric. The exodus, which has continued for years, left a major hole in the company's financials that were already in freefall following Musk's acquisition. Instead of acknowledging the sheer amount of damage he has done, Musk is accusing advertisers of colluding against him in the lawsuit, which he filed in August of last year. The prolonged legal fight turned ugly when the Global Alliance of Responsible Media (GARM), a World Federation of Advertisers (WFA) initiative, dissolved after Musk filed the complaint. The initiative was set up in 2019 to protect advertisers from exactly the kind of hurtful content that has flourished on X-formerly-Twitter, including child sex-abuse material, and displays of violence. But now, GARM members and non-GARM members alike have joined forces to reject Musk's accusations of a conspiracy, pointing out that they each had individually determined X was far too toxic to advertise on. The group also refuted the findings of a Republican-led investigation by the House Judiciary Committee that claimed its members colluded against the conservative-leaning media. In their latest finding, the WFA pointed out that advertisers' decision to stay clear of Musk's toxic platform fell under their First Amendment rights. "Antitrust law protects competition," the filing reads. "It does not protect X from competition." More on Twitter: Grok AI Claims Elon Musk Told It to Go on Lunatic Rants About "White Genocide" Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Business Insider
15-05-2025
- Business
- Business Insider
Advertisers hit back at Elon Musk's 'ad boycott' lawsuit, saying X disrupted its own business and 'alienated' customers
The advertisers and trade group targeted by an antitrust lawsuit from Elon Musk's X have hit back against its claims that they colluded to form an illegal boycott of the platform. X is suing several major brands, including Mars, Lego, Nestlé, and Shell, alleging their participation in an ad industry initiative called the Global Alliance of Responsible Media, GARM, was tantamount to a conspiracy to "collectively withhold billions of dollars in advertising" from X after Musk's takeover of the company, then known as Twitter. X had claimed the alleged boycott resulted in it becoming "a less effective competitor to other social media platforms in the sale of digital advertising and in competing for user engagement on its platform." In a joint motion filed on Wednesday seeking to dismiss the case, the defendants said the lawsuit was instead "an attempt to use the courthouse to win back the business X lost in the free market when it disrupted its own business and alienated many of its customers." Founded in 2019, GARM was an initiative of the advertiser trade body The World Federation of Advertisers that aimed to provide the industry with a common language and frameworks to help categorize the kind of content that advertisers tend to want to avoid. The categories ranged from obviously harmful content like child sex-abuse imagery, to content like violence, which different sorts of advertisers have varying risk appetites toward. The uptake of these frameworks was voluntary. X was previously itself a GARM member. "None of the membership materials refers to boycotts, the exclusion of competitors, or the disclosure of competitively sensitive information," the WFA and advertiser defendants said in Wednesday's filing. GARM discontinued operations after X filed its initial lawsuit last summer, saying the two-person operation lacked the resources to fight it. GARM's parent, the WFA, is still operating and remains a defendant in the case. In Wednesday's filing, the WFA and the group of brands rejected the accusations of a conspiracy and said that advertisers — including non-GARM members —made their own individual decisions about pulling ad spend from X. It noted that X's own lawsuit said just 18 of GARM's more than 100 members stopped advertising on the platform. X's advertising revenue had plummeted after Musk took control of Twitter in 2022. Under his leadership, the company fired reams of staff who had been responsible for areas like brand and platform safety, loosened content moderation rules, and brought back controversial banned accounts. Some of X's original legal argument was built on a prior probe from the House Judiciary Committee, led by its Republican chairman Jim Jordan. The committee published an investigation last summer that alleged GARM and its members colluded to boycott platforms, podcasts, news outlets, and other conservative-leaning media content they disfavored. The WFA and the advertiser defendants said in the latest filing that even if marketers had chosen to stay away from X for political reasons, this would be protected by the First Amendment as an act of free speech and wouldn't be within the scope of antitrust law. The WFA and some of the advertiser defendants — many of which are headquartered outside of the US — are also seeking to dismiss the case, which was filed in a Texas court, for lack of proper jurisdiction. The WFA declined to comment. X and the advertiser defendants — Mars, CVS Health, Ørsted, Nestlé, Abbott Laboratories, Colgate-Palmoliver, Lego, Pinterest, Tyson Foods, and Shell — didn't immediately respond to requests for comment. This month, X dropped its claims against the video platform Twitch, which was also previously a defendant in the case. X's court filing didn't state a reason, but the dismissal was brought "without prejudice," which means X could potentially sue Twitch again over the ad-boycott dispute. Last month, X had told the judge presiding over the case that the two companies had reached an agreement for the claims to be dropped if Twitch met conditions, which it didn't detail, this year. Unilever was also initially named as a defendant in the original lawsuit, but reached an agreement with X and was dropped from the suit in October.
