How Elon Musk and X's decision to sue advertisers may have just backfired | Mashable.
How Elon Musk and X's decision to sue advertisers may have just backfired
 |
| An ad non-profit is shutting down after a lawsuit from X but there will likely be consequences for Elon Musk's social media company. Credit: Jakub Porzycki/NurPhoto via Getty Images |
Just earlier this week, Elon Musk's X announced that it was suing the constituent members of an initiative known as the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM).
On Thursday, just days after X's federal antitrust lawsuit was filed, the organization behind GARM, the World Federation of Advertisers (WFA), announced that it was dissolving GARM. The WFA and several corporations were the suit's named defendants, not GARM itself.
X claimed in its lawsuit that WFA and a number of its major advertising members "conspired" to “collectively withhold billions of dollars in advertising revenue”
After the news was announced, X CEO Linda Yaccarino took to X to celebrate GARM's end. However, at least one adtech watchdog is claiming that this might actually backfire for X.
GARM shuts down
According to a letter from the WFA that was sent to its members, as first reported by Business Insider, the group was "discontinuing" GARM as a result of X's lawsuit as the initiative was a non-profit with limited resources. The GARM initiative, which helped members avoid advertising on harmful websites, was staffed by only two full-time employees.
However, the WFA will continue on and challenge X's lawsuit, saying they committed no wrongdoing.
The Republican-led House Judiciary Committee, whose report was used by X in its lawsuit, deemed GARM's closure a "big win for the first amendment."
X CEO Linda Yaccarino quoted the House Judiciary Committee post in her own reply.
"No small group should be able to monopolize what gets monetized," Yaccarino said. "This is an important acknowledgement and a necessary step in the right direction. I am hopeful that it means ecosystem-wide reform is coming."
Mashable reached out to X for comment. In a reply, X emailed a link to Linda Yaccarino's statement above.
Not so fast, X
However, Check My Ads, an adtech watchdog that has successfully taken on hateful websites and ad platforms that serve advertising on them, says that X's celebration is premature.
"Advertisers know a bad ad placement when they see one," said Claire Atkin, co-founder of Check My Ads, in a statement provided to Mashable. "The reality is today’s decision means even more advertisers will flee X, and quickly so they’re not targeted in the future."
In an analysis of GARM's closure on its own website, Check My Ads' founders say that the more likely outcome is that advertisers will now be less likely to advertise on X as they won't base advertising decisions on GARM's recommendation. Check My Ads points out that X was just touting how it was reinstated into GARM just last month.
X posted that the reinstatement was part of its "deep commitment to brand safety."
So to recap, X had just regained GARM as an ally, and then it filed a lawsuit, apparently causing its ally to disband, leaving — assuming it really was a monopoly — no comparable initiative in existence to recommend that advertisers make deals with X.
"Everyone can see that advertising on X is a treacherous business relationship for advertisers," Atkin's said in Check My Ads' statement to Mashable. "And we know, based on public reporting, X doesn’t have all that many to lose."
Seems like he’s been making all kinds of good decisions lately 😂
ReplyDeleteI’ve sued many work places that didn’t hire me
ReplyDeleteThis is a classy Alpha Move by Musk
What on earth is 'wokness'? You can't even spell a simple word -- I can only imagine how many places have refused to hire you.
DeleteThe ones who ascriminate against #MAGA alphas with wokness don’t hire me
DeleteWhat on earth is "ascriminate" and "wokness"? I wouldn't hire you unless it was for a role that requires illiteracy as an essential criteria. Yours, HR professional.
Deletewrong and degenerative argument. Be well
DeleteOf course it did. Musk is not good at business
ReplyDeleteBoycotting contractual obligations as a manipulative force to influence the decision making of another is very close to blackmail.
ReplyDeleteSo Elon Musk should absolutely win the lawsuit.
Did you READ the complaint? There were no “contractual obligations” to advertise on X. Not even the incompetents who drafted the complaint allege that there were.
DeleteInstead, they misuse the antitrust laws to FORCE consumers to buy from a specific vendor - the EXACT opposite of the intent of the antitrust laws.
Yall against elon. Good luck
ReplyDeleteHon, he doesn't even know who you are
DeleteThanks for pointingnout the obvious. Jesus
Deletehttps://media1.tenor.co/m/jg7k01FBbTsAAAAd/thumbs-up-well-done.gif?c=VjFfZmFjZWJvb2tfd2ViY29tbWVudHM&fbclid=IwY2xjawEjpPhleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHXic1Q-Uecf7y0kETKBxMFYc21XUM0kEMDivKXiMK97bBkfRo4q5yJQQvQ_aem_3md4SwZkJWIJNpiUnyi9Cw
ReplyDeleteaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwww come on Elon, lets give up on this one ne
ReplyDeleteI know right ✅ wahhh. He's a child.
Deletecranky spoiled brat
DeleteX is about to become a chat room for Musk fans. Who else would want to be on it?
ReplyDeleteBecause it was bad?
ReplyDeleteThe MOST Stable Genius of all 🤮🤮🤮
ReplyDeleteIt was dead from the start.
ReplyDeletehttps://media1.tenor.co/m/35PjJyAB740AAAAC/cats-titanic.gif?t=AAYfPvsA28UIWoOkiSAYDQ&c=VjFfZmFjZWJvb2s&fbclid=IwY2xjawEjpZlleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHRifNEXN-hne7-ciuFbPTMVK_OFXllaRlz3RPbDvEEdI3b2CSHw4AE-0Wg_aem_2UZKIJPWvmi2i7QCUTAEHQ
ReplyDeleteHe must be hemorrhaging money with X and I’m here for it.
ReplyDeleteThe fool will be a fool. #LoneSkum
ReplyDelete🗣️🗣️🗣️You can’t sue people because they don’t want to spend money on your product!!!!!!!!!!!
ReplyDeleteHe's got no head for business.
ReplyDeleteI’m trying to dissect the many WTFs that have emerged from reading this story.
ReplyDeleteDude needs an intervention!
ReplyDeleteDump "X" !!
ReplyDeleteI dump Twitter in 2020 uninstalled the app never used it every since
DeleteF U commies
DeleteF Y Too!!
Delete( )=Swastika
ReplyDeleteRecap.
ReplyDeleteTwitter had problems with GRAM.
they work it out and GRAM comes back
X sues their ally GRAM
Now no advertisers trust or want to work with X or any of their affiliates.
Sounds good to me. Way to kill a business Elon the FRAUDSTER.
MAGA 💩 musk
ReplyDeleteFor such a smart guy he sure acts like a putz sometimes
ReplyDeleteFor a so-called bright man, he seems to make more and more mistakes. He hopes that hitching his wagon to the Trump campaign will give him more power.
ReplyDeleteLol yes 😅😅
Deletebecause it will🦘🧠
DeleteThat moment when someone says, "I can't believe you would vote for Trump," I simply reply:
"I'm not voting for Trump, I'm voting for the First Amendment and freedom of speech.
I'm voting for the Second Amendment and my right to defend my life and my family.
I'm voting for the next Supreme Court Justice(s) to protect the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
I’m voting for the continued growth of my retirement 401K and the stock market.
I’m voting for a return of our troops from foreign countries and the end to America’s involvement in foreign conflicts.
I'm voting for the Electoral College and for the Republic in which we live.
I'm voting for the Police to be respected once again and to ensure Law & Order.
I’m voting for the continued appointment of Federal Judges who respect the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
I’m voting for our jobs to remain in America and not be outsourced all over again to China, Mexico and other foreign countries.
I’m voting for secure borders and legal immigration.
I'm voting for the Military & the Veterans who fought for this Country to give the American people their freedoms.
I'm voting for the unborn babies that have a right to live. Trump already states he is not banning abortion. Left up to states.
I’m voting for the continued peace progress in the Middle East.
I’m voting to fight against human/child trafficking.
I’m voting for Freedom of Religion.
I'm voting for the right to speak my opinion and not be censored.
I'm voting for my children and my grandchildren to ensure their freedoms and their future.
I'm not just voting for one person, I'm voting for the future of my Country.”
What a list of delusional clap trap. You are voting for a guy has said there will be no more voting after this election, or did you not see that part.
Delete'Delusional ' u will see soon enough🦘❤️
DeleteThe secret history of the financial war for control of the planet earth (Prewritten)
ByBenjamin Fulford July 29, 2024
Weekly raw news and video feed at the end of the report.
Since many people have only recently discovered there is a secret financial war going on for the planet earth, we have decided to provide a summary as we start our annual sabbatical. This year it will be in the Japanese alps and only for two weeks because of the intense secret war now raging. The information here comes from Asian and European royals, intelligence agencies, secret societies etc. gleaned during the two decades I have been involved in this secret war.
Although the war has been raging for millennia, we will start in 1913. That is the year a group of bankers took control of creating and distributing money away from the US Congress and created the Federal Reserve Board.
https://dn790003.ca.archive.org/0/items/pdfy–Pori1NL6fKm2SnY/The%20Creature%20From%20Jekyll%20Island.pdf
Having seized control of the US, the bankers immediately set into motion their plan to start World War I. This war led to the destruction of the German, Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires.
At the end of the war, at the Treaty of Versailles, Germany was forced to pay 132 billion gold marks as compensation. The only people who could provide Germany with so much gold were the Asian royals.
As background, since Roman times the Asians have been sending spices, silk, ceramics etc. to the West and receiving gold and silver as payment. As a result of this, 85% of the worlds’ gold stocks are in Asia.
The deal the Germans reached with the Asian royals resulted in the creation of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) in 1930. According to Asians royals a secret deal was reached that, in exchange for Asian gold, promised the creation of a global parliament with royals acting as guardians. The Asians were told this would require World War II in order for it to be set up.
In preparation for this war, US Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau went around Asia in the 1930’s collecting gold in exchange for Treaty of Versailles boxes containing bonds denominated in countless trillions of dollars.
Of special importance was gold evacuated from China by US warships in 1938 to prevent it from falling into Japanese hands. In exchange for this gold, the US gave the Chinese Kuomintang Party 60 year bonds and promised to return the gold at the end of the 60 years.
At the Bretton Woods Conference in 1944 the Asians provided gold to back the US dollar as the main post war international currency. The winners of World War II: The US, England, France, the Soviet Union and Kuomintang China (now Taiwan) were given a 50 year mandate to develop the world.
However, when the victors of the war broke their promise to develop the world and only modernized countries they controlled, the Asian royals stopped giving gold to the Westerners.
Also, after the Cuban missile crisis of 1962 nearly led to all out global thermonuclear war, US President John F. Kennedy decided to take control of the US dollar away from the Federal Reserve Board. He made a deal with Indonesian President Sukarno, a senior Asian royal, to get gold to back Kennedy dollars he was going to issue. The result was then Israeli Prime Minister David ben Gurion, acting on the orders of the Khazarian mafia controllers of the FRB, had Kennedy assassinated. Later, the CIA murdered over one million Indonesians and deposed Sukarno in 1967.
The Asians retaliated by selling all the US dollars they had and converting them into gold. As a result the US began to run out of gold and so, in 1971 during the so-called Nixon shock, the US dollar was taken off the gold standard.
Then in 1974 Nixon made a 50-year deal with Saudi Arabia to create the petrodollar. That deal ran out in June of 2024.
The US also made a secret deal with communist China in 1978. They gave the last of the imperial Chinese gold they had to the Chinese Communist Party and promised to help modernize China.
New game: count the conspiracies. First one to hit on a true fact loses.
DeleteThis is not a mistake in the slightest, on the contrary this is a big win for him already. This article is completely misleading…
DeleteSo will he sue users who quit twitter when he bought it as well?
ReplyDeleteLmao look at all these people not aware of how this lawsuit is already winning and making the advertisers are already closing down, just look at GRM LOL ,
ReplyDeleteGRM was a non profit with two people working it. They did not spend ad dollars, they only advised. Since the lawsuit, I’ve had more clients call saying they want to pull out of X completely. Not worth the risk. I wouldn’t exactly call that winning.
Deleteit’s GARM, genius, not GRM. Reading comprehension clearly isn’t your strong suit.
Deleteyou really thought you did something here huh 😂😂
DeleteI also noticed a huge uptake on Twitter with anti-English sentiment since Elon decided to fan the flames of hate in the UK. I wonder if it's linked?
ReplyDeleteSeems he must war with everyone.
pretty much, he's got his nose in Venezuelan politics now too. He wants to be a global dictator.
DeleteElmo Musk is a CONservative repukkkelican douche bag
ReplyDeleteI disagree, Elon Musk is a full-on nutt job 😉
Deleteagreed
DeleteEveryone is leaving x as it’s crap
ReplyDeleteMusk = a tool...and NOT a helpful one 😁
ReplyDeleteUfg enough
ReplyDelete" I will force you to be my paying customer against your will!"
ReplyDeletehe reason he bought X/Twitter is that as the main owner he could not be sacked by the owners. Let's face it, any decent board would have sacked him a long time ago.
DeleteBeware of fake profiles of Elon musk. I met him in person in a conference meeting in Los Angeles weeks ago and I luckily got his Private page. Here is the link any other page is probably fake❌‼️. Please be careful out there. You can leave a message of support for him on his private page by clicking this link to send a direct message thank you. You can leave a message of support for him on his private page by clicking this link to send a direct message thank you.
Delete👇👇👇
👇👇👇
https://www.facebook.com/61563661392319/posts/122104683146455379/?mibextid=rS40aB7S9Ucbxw6v
The "United States of Oligarchs"
ReplyDeleteFat and greedy corporate masters, backed by the CONservative repukkkelican SCOTUS to subjugatie, women, the poor LGBTQ and the middleclass.
X2022叉叉是恐怖片呀.推特又怎麼了🤔💬⁉️
ReplyDeleteThen maybe he shouldn’t have told a bunch of advertisers to go F themselves… idiot.
ReplyDelete#ElonMuskIsLexLuthor
ReplyDeleteIt was a dumb plan
ReplyDelete🥴🖕🏼
ReplyDeleteHe's just like trump.. everything he touches turn to crap
ReplyDeleteis that why he is being asked to rescue the Boeing astronauts. His space program is doing just fine....
DeleteMusk and traitor trumf proved you can be a total moron and be a billionaire if you have enough capital behind you.
ReplyDeleteFEM 🤡
ReplyDeletejust like Trump. I’ve been calling him Trump 2.0 for a couple of years now.
ReplyDeleteSurely freedom of speech includes the freedom to not advertise on a site.
ReplyDeleteIndeed. They take away rights every single day in one state or another.
DeleteBet you can’t prove that statement with credible proof
DeleteHere's a list of pro-life GOP politicians that have paid for abortions:
Deletehttps://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/aug/25/a-republican-theme-on-abortions-its-ok-for-me-evil-for-thee
Have the Republicans stopped you when you tried to move to another state that makes laws that you approve of and agree with? This is the United States of America not the federation of America.
Deletelol this didn't turn out as you thought it would, did it?
DeleteYour cult proves it daily. Try open those closed eyes for once.
DeleteAbsolutely. But stop calling me Shirley!
DeleteYou need to bone up on the Sherman Act, among other anti-trust statutes.
DeleteSherman act has to do with monopolies. Companies coming together to agree not to show their advertisements alongside hate speech has nothing to do with monopolies.
DeleteYou need to actually read the Sherman Act AND the decades of precedence.
DeleteAt no time have the antitrust laws been used to FORCE consumers to buy from a specific vendor. In fact, the intent of the laws is to prevent a vendor from exerting an anticompetitive control over a market.
It’s why we don’t have MA Bell anymore.
How does that apply? Please explain in full detail?
DeleteBut that would mean they would have to acknowledge reality. Hints all the thumbs down, they are threatened by reality and truth.
DeleteMan, the amount of copium in this comment is WILD.
DeleteSays the cult who cries against all of reality. Yeah, you can't make your kind of delusion of.
DeleteI wonder if there is a list somewhere of current advertisers on Xitter, so that I can be sure not to spend money on them?
ReplyDeleteBecause I'm sure not going to validate that site by going there to look.
Would it be possible to not embed posts from that site in articles, but rather just state what they said, or use a screen shot... Or another source if possible?
It's mostly dropshippers these days. I just block every ad I come across without reading them.
DeleteAnd fan duel,gambling sites and crypto
DeleteYou seem really frightened maybe you should stay off the internet altogether.
DeleteAstonishing that X found lawyers to argue that antitrust laws can be used to FORCE consumers to buy from a particular vendor. Never in the history of the laws has that happened.
ReplyDeleteThink about it: Can consumers be FORCED to buy from CVS, if they prefer Walgreens? Subscribe to the Washington Post if they prefer The NY Times?
Antitrust laws are, in fact, intended to have the opposite effect. If the New York Times suddenly tried to buy ALL the newspapers in its market, the antitrust laws could operate to stop that purchase. Why? Because if the Times used its market power to FORCE all newsreaders to be limited to the Times.
It’s a misuse of the legal system at best.
I think the argument from Musk here is that 100 advertisers created a "clearinghouse" called GARM, which then created a policy based on statistics that said that X was a potentially bad place to advertise, i.e. placing ads along hate speech. The 100 advertisers therefore colluded to drop X for their ad dollars.
DeleteWe'll see how that argument holds up. I doubt it will because this is not similar to price fixing, it doesn't force any advertiser to follow it, the advertisers did not "meet/discuss" to decide not to advertise, and GARM did not focus on just X but created statistics for a large number of online platforms.
He didn’t sue GARM.
DeleteI didn't say he did. The suit is against WFA and 5 of its members.
DeleteSome US redstates force contractors to sign documents saying they will do business with Israel and I think Musk has taken the case in a red state so he might have a sympathetic judge. Can't see it lasting appeal though.
DeleteI’m not sure what his endgame is as there’s no way the courts can force companies to advertise on twitter
DeleteThink of Fox news being sued for spreading disinformation about Dominion voting. X claims WFA conspired in violation of the Sherman act to prevent ads from being placed on X by claiming it was spreading disinformation. They will expect WFA to pay out a large fraction of the billion dollars claimed in the suit. That's likely why Garm was shut down by WFA and likely told to shred all the records and burn the building on the way out. A billion dollars is still real money.
DeleteI would hope anti-slap laws apply. This seems like an attempt to use a bogus lawsuit to stop legally protected action. But I could be wrong. Let's hope this case makes it to court so we can findout.
ReplyDeleteQuestion, does Texas have such laws?
DeleteI want to why the Republicans in congress feel they have a right to tell a private company who they should or should not advertise with. What happened to a free market. Again just another example of the republican party showing just how authoritarian they really are.
ReplyDeleteThe Republicans have a vested interest in the misinformation that takes place on Twitter. It was one of the primary drivers of Trump's win in 2016 with the help of Russian and chinese bot farms. Without that misinformation campaign, they know they stand to lose a lot.
DeleteDefinitely not the way I remember it. The numerous leftist fake news sources were impossible to avoid.
DeleteYou know the difference between the left and the right? Evidence.
DeleteBecause you drank the Russian Kool-Aid...
DeleteWe were at "monopolies are bad", are we moving to "monopolies are bad except the ones I like" now?
DeleteFTC action against Google is equally authoritarian?
Or is that a whiff of hypocrisy in the air?
Monopolies for me, not for thee
DeleteHow can anyone company monopolize advertising there are many many companies each of which advertise for themselves.
DeleteDid you not read the article? WFA is a conglomerate that controls about 90% of the advertising dollars spent.
DeleteWhich Republican official told which company where they could have couldn't advertise?
DeleteWhy would anyone want to advertise on X now? Unstable Elon might sue you if you ever try to stop advertising.
ReplyDeleteLets see...I'll tell my customers who pays my bills that they can "go F$$$ themselves". Then, for those that haven't left, I'll show them that I'll sue them if they don't advertise. Great plan! What can possibly go wrong?!?
ReplyDeleteMy only regret about not being on X is not being able to quit X.
ReplyDeleteOh, the irony! "No small group should be able to monopolize what gets monetized." They really can't hear themselves, can they?
ReplyDeleteI'm sure the owner of X friend in musk's antics. Who was that again ?
ReplyDeletePerhaps you are not clear on what ownership means?
DeleteWhy America have so many brainwashed people?
ReplyDeleteNot the first time that someone chose to quash a treacherous ally rather than continue a strained relationship. But kudos to the boys for once again being so solicitous of the conservative welfare!
ReplyDeleteHe didn't quash a treacherous ally, he quashed a figurehead and soured desperately needed advertiser relationships. Just a little word to the wise, but if the only relationships you have are strained, you're the problem. There's nothing keeping Twitter profitable without advertisers, the supply of which Twitter has even a "strained" relationship with is running real short. But hey, when Musk finishes driving Twitter into the ground, we'll be around to say "I told yall so", so don't worry.
DeleteAnother word to the wise: If you’re suing everybody all the time, you are the problem, not them.
Deletehttps://imgur.com/a/SGO4Tr8
Can't wait for that day 😂
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteSo, your argument for why brands should advertise on Twitter is that lots of people will see those ads next to Nazi comments? I don't think that argument is as strong as it sounded in your head. Most people in America (the world really) think Nazis are bad, actually. And will not purchase goods or services from brands they associate with Nazis.
DeleteSo happy I never touched twitter, X, or anything Tesla.
ReplyDeleteThis op-ed draws false correlations. Current reinstatement of X by GARM is not an absolution by X of GARM's past transgressions of violating the Sherman Act which may have cost X billions in ad revenue, so X rightfully is suing.
ReplyDeleteSherman act has nothing to do with this. Monopolies are about controlling a market. Companies agreeing to not show their logos alongside hate speech has nothing to do with monopolies.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteHave you ever read the Sherman Antitrust Act? The Robinson-Patman Act? The decades of case law interpreting and enforcing those laws?
DeleteI didn’t think so.
The intent of these laws is not to FORCE consumers to buy from a specific vendor. The intent is exactly the opposite: to PREVENT consumers from being forced into a market controlled by a single vendor.
X’s lawyers should be embarrassed to have drafted the complaint.
I don't see that correlation being made. Can you make it clear?
DeleteMe neither.
DeleteTwitter does not have a right to any advertiser’s money. Freedom of association means they can absolutely say “your website is full of rancid people with even more rancid beliefs, we’re not gonna give you money.” Elon’s not really interested in free speech when it backfires on him.
DeleteI believe you're confused. The Sherman act regulates abuses of selling power. GARM represents BUYERS of advertising, not sellers. Musk is trying to sue his customers who pay his bills. They can buy ads elsewhere, as they did long before Twitter was a thing.
DeleteGot no facts huh?
DeleteThats funny
ReplyDeleteLOL....you all need Jesus!
ReplyDeleteJesus is too liberal for many.
DeleteOn the right.
Delete