3 days ago
9
X accused of “fishing expedition”
Musk’s recently dismissed lawsuit targeted the World Federation of Advertisers, as well as formerly major Twitter advertisers, including Shell, Nestle, Colgate, and Mars.
Analyzing the alleged conspiracy, Boyle makes it clear in her opinion that Musk seemingly did not realize ahead of purchasing Twitter how much power advertisers had gained over platforms by collectively agreeing on brand safety standards.
As advertisers explained in court filings, they had very little power over ad placements in social media’s early days. That’s why they created the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM): They wanted more control over the content appearing around their ads.
By banding together through an advertiser-controlled initiative that platforms could join but not control, they could finally force platforms to honor their brand safety standards. They did that by sending letters threatening collective action if standards weren’t maintained. That seemingly agitated Musk when he got his first letter reminding him that Twitter was bound by GARM standards.
A subsequent email hinting that there had been “calls for boycotts” seemingly spooked Musk, who arranged a meeting to ensure Twitter wasn’t expelled from GARM.
Although that meeting went well, it didn’t end the boycott, which Musk said continues to this day. Ars chronicled the worst impacts a year into the boycott. At its lowest, the platform’s revenue was down by as much as 59 percent “for the five weeks from April 1 to the first week of May” in 2023, The New York Times reported.
Frustrated that the peace talks didn’t end the way he wanted and complaining that the platform had to reduce ad prices just to stay afloat, Musk then sued.
English (US) ·