3 ms·

Group boycotts like this one are illegal in certain circumstances. Here's an explanation unrelated to this case: https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competitio

Group boycotts like this one are illegal in certain circumstances. Here's an explanation unrelated to this case: https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/dealings-competitors/group-boycotts https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/gui... "Any company may, on its own, refuse to do business with another firm, but an agreement among competitors not to do business with targeted individuals or businesses may be an illegal boycott, especially if the group of competitors working together has market power."

malshe 2y ago
The term “agreement among competitors” is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that quotation. Is there any evidence that this boycott was coordinated? AFAIK so far every advertiser who pulled out has a solid reason for doing so.
- leereeves 2y ago
  I don't know, but the Congressional report claims "a GARM member documented discussions about the boycott, noting that the company had pulled advertisements from Twitter based on GARM's recommendations." https://judiciary.house.gov/media/press-releases/how-worlds-biggest-brands-seek-control-online-speech https://judiciary.house.gov/media/press-releases/how-worlds-...
- quantified 2y ago
  What are the cohorts of competitors vs simply a bunch of companies? If a couple of alcoholic beverage companies or airlines were part of the group as well as unrelated companies, it could be said that competitors were agreeing. But that's super weak.
  - techostritch 2y ago
    I think the why must matter though right? Unrelated to I viewpoint could you just sue a group because they all agree advertising on your platform is useless?
wkat4242 2y ago
Oh. I see. Sounds a bit like that bakery that said "we don't bake cakes for gays" and got justifiably (in my opinion) sued. Though it's not really the same, it's kinda the reverse (refusing business) I guess if such a thing really happened he might have a case. But I'm sure Disney can easily get out of it by just submitting the infamous "go fuck yourself" interview into evidence :)
- hn_acker 2y ago
  > that bakery that said "we don't bake cakes for gays" and got justifiably slapped. If you're referring to Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, you're mistaken on two points. First of all, the bakery didn't get slapped. The Commission got slapped [1]. > The Commission compared Phillips's religious beliefs to defense of slavery or the Holocaust. Kennedy found such comparisons "inappropriate for a Commission charged with the solemn responsibility of fair and neutral enforcement of Colorado’s anti-discrimination law". > The Court avoided ruling broadly on the intersection of anti-discrimination laws and rights to free exercise. > Kennedy's decision specifically noted the hostility towards Phillips made by the Commission as their reason to reverse the ruling, but because of the existence of this hostility in the current case, they could not rule on the broader issue regarding anti-discrimination law and the free exercise of religion. Secondly, the baker refused to make an on-demand wedding cake for a gay couple because, according to the baker, doing so would express approval of a gay marriage against the baker's religious beliefs. The gay couple could buy a general-purpose cake or anything already on a shelf. Anyway, whatever led advertisers to leave Twitter probably had nothing to do with protected classes. Political opinions are not protected classes. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colora...
root_axis 2y ago
Not applicable in this case since the advertisers are not competitors to twitter, rather they are soliciting twitter for a service and there is pretty much no scenario where it would be illegal not to buy a service from a particular vendor.

malshe 2y ago

The term “agreement among competitors” is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that quotation. Is there any evidence that this boycott was coordinated? AFAIK so far every advertiser who pulled out has a solid reason for doing so.

leereeves 2y ago
I don't know, but the Congressional report claims "a GARM member documented discussions about the boycott, noting that the company had pulled advertisements from Twitter based on GARM's recommendations." https://judiciary.house.gov/media/press-releases/how-worlds-biggest-brands-seek-control-online-speech https://judiciary.house.gov/media/press-releases/how-worlds-...
quantified 2y ago
What are the cohorts of competitors vs simply a bunch of companies? If a couple of alcoholic beverage companies or airlines were part of the group as well as unrelated companies, it could be said that competitors were agreeing. But that's super weak.
- techostritch 2y ago
  I think the why must matter though right? Unrelated to I viewpoint could you just sue a group because they all agree advertising on your platform is useless?

wkat4242 2y ago

Oh. I see. Sounds a bit like that bakery that said "we don't bake cakes for gays" and got justifiably (in my opinion) sued. Though it's not really the same, it's kinda the reverse (refusing business) I guess if such a thing really happened he might have a case. But I'm sure Disney can easily get out of it by just submitting the infamous "go fuck yourself" interview into evidence :)

hn_acker 2y ago
> that bakery that said "we don't bake cakes for gays" and got justifiably slapped. If you're referring to Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, you're mistaken on two points. First of all, the bakery didn't get slapped. The Commission got slapped [1]. > The Commission compared Phillips's religious beliefs to defense of slavery or the Holocaust. Kennedy found such comparisons "inappropriate for a Commission charged with the solemn responsibility of fair and neutral enforcement of Colorado’s anti-discrimination law". > The Court avoided ruling broadly on the intersection of anti-discrimination laws and rights to free exercise. > Kennedy's decision specifically noted the hostility towards Phillips made by the Commission as their reason to reverse the ruling, but because of the existence of this hostility in the current case, they could not rule on the broader issue regarding anti-discrimination law and the free exercise of religion. Secondly, the baker refused to make an on-demand wedding cake for a gay couple because, according to the baker, doing so would express approval of a gay marriage against the baker's religious beliefs. The gay couple could buy a general-purpose cake or anything already on a shelf. Anyway, whatever led advertisers to leave Twitter probably had nothing to do with protected classes. Political opinions are not protected classes. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colora...

root_axis 2y ago

Not applicable in this case since the advertisers are not competitors to twitter, rather they are soliciting twitter for a service and there is pretty much no scenario where it would be illegal not to buy a service from a particular vendor.