Asking the 5th Circuit to reverse Boyle, X argued that advertisers colluded to boycott X, “eliminat[ing] the independent decision-making that would otherwise force each firm to weigh the competitive benefits of continuing to advertise on the platform, suppressing competitive rivalries and insulating the boycott from market forces. The group boycott targeting X thus distorts competition in multiple markets in clear contravention of the antitrust laws.”
X’s claims relate to the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM), an initiative by the World Federation of Advertisers to define violent and obscene content and help advertisers create brand-safety guidelines. The ad industry shut down Garm after Musk filed the lawsuit in 2024, though law professors described X’s legal case as a weak one.
X’s filing yesterday said that GARM “exercised collective power through its rules for membership. As a condition of joining GARM, members agree[d] to adopt GARM solutions to improve business operations.’ For GARM’s advertiser and advertising agency members, that meant agreeing to enforce the implementation of the Brand Safety Standards by the social-media platforms from which they purchased advertising.”
