11 ms·

No. X's position is that a multi-company cartel colluded to not advertise on X in order to damage its business.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> X's position is that a multi-company cartel colluded to not advertise on X in order to damage its business Sort of. Musk has been attempting to weaponise litigation. The transparent aim of the suit is to bully departed advertisers to spend less on ads than they would on legal. The oversight being those are different departments, with the more-likely result being the manager who ran ads on X being fired while legal sutures the wound. (Even the suit being against the trade association defeats its own purpose.)
- taylodl 2y ago
  The affected parties will counter sue. I have no idea who X is using for legal counsel, but they are not the best. Methinks this is a form of "advertising" designed to gin up right-wing ire and get them using X. Think of it as "social advertising." I suspect it will backfire massively.
  - cratermoon 2y ago
    No doubt the MAGA crew will respond by advocating for boycotts of the advertisers listed. Remember when they boycotted Bud Light because Dylan Mulvaney did a promo for it?
    - keernan 2y ago
      Under Musk's legal theory, advocating for boycotts is illegal.
      - taylodl 2y ago
        Yeah, it's unfortunate for X that Musk's "legal theory" doesn't align with the legal theory actually used by US courts
      - cratermoon 2y ago
        Under Musk's legal delusions, "free speech" means "if you don't listen to what I say you're censoring me"
        keernan 2y ago
        In that regard, his argument that corporate entities are illegally censoring X for political views flies in the face of the SCOTUS opinion in Citizens United. Ironic since Citizens United enables billionaires like Musk to use their corporate entities to engage in political speech. Musk is just a child who expects the world to bow down in his presence.
- AnimalMuppet 2y ago
  The lawsuit is against GARM, but also against members CVS Health, Mars, Orsted and Unilever. Those aren't particularly bully-able. They have enough money to fight this to the end, and the cost of fighting it may well be less than they judge the cost to be for the bad PR of associating with X.
taylodl 2y ago
> multi-company cartel That's one way to spin it. Another way to spin it, which is how it will be presented in court, is this "cartel" is tasked with advising their clients on how to direct their advertising budget to maximize their reach and protect their brand.
- Jensson 2y ago
  Then that entity is a monopoly and should be investigated as a monopoly for anti trust issues. No matter how you slice it this is a clear anti-trust case that needs to be decided in court.
  - taylodl 2y ago
    They're an advisor. Companies are under no obligation to heed their advice. So no, there's no anti-trust case at all and as such this case should be summarily dismissed.
quantified 2y ago
Would it be illegal for any one company to not advertise in order to damage its business? How about individuals? Is my not buying a Tesla in order to deny that revenue to the Musk world considered illegal?
talldayo 2y ago
I think that's a proportionally relevant response to inviting extremists and brand risks onto your platform.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
anonbanker 2y ago
[flagged]
- wtfwhateven 2y ago
  It is literally not X's position.
  - dingosity 2y ago
    "literally" literally doesn't mean "literally" any more.

> X's position is that a multi-company cartel colluded to not advertise on X in order to damage its business Sort of. Musk has been attempting to weaponise litigation. The transparent aim of the suit is to bully departed advertisers to spend less on ads than they would on legal. The oversight being those are different departments, with the more-likely result being the manager who ran ads on X being fired while legal sutures the wound. (Even the suit being against the trade association defeats its own purpose.)

taylodl 2y ago
The affected parties will counter sue. I have no idea who X is using for legal counsel, but they are not the best. Methinks this is a form of "advertising" designed to gin up right-wing ire and get them using X. Think of it as "social advertising." I suspect it will backfire massively.
- cratermoon 2y ago
  No doubt the MAGA crew will respond by advocating for boycotts of the advertisers listed. Remember when they boycotted Bud Light because Dylan Mulvaney did a promo for it?
  - keernan 2y ago
    Under Musk's legal theory, advocating for boycotts is illegal.
    - taylodl 2y ago
      Yeah, it's unfortunate for X that Musk's "legal theory" doesn't align with the legal theory actually used by US courts
    - cratermoon 2y ago
      Under Musk's legal delusions, "free speech" means "if you don't listen to what I say you're censoring me"
      - keernan 2y ago
        In that regard, his argument that corporate entities are illegally censoring X for political views flies in the face of the SCOTUS opinion in Citizens United. Ironic since Citizens United enables billionaires like Musk to use their corporate entities to engage in political speech. Musk is just a child who expects the world to bow down in his presence.
AnimalMuppet 2y ago
The lawsuit is against GARM, but also against members CVS Health, Mars, Orsted and Unilever. Those aren't particularly bully-able. They have enough money to fight this to the end, and the cost of fighting it may well be less than they judge the cost to be for the bad PR of associating with X.

taylodl 2y ago

> multi-company cartel That's one way to spin it. Another way to spin it, which is how it will be presented in court, is this "cartel" is tasked with advising their clients on how to direct their advertising budget to maximize their reach and protect their brand.

Jensson 2y ago
Then that entity is a monopoly and should be investigated as a monopoly for anti trust issues. No matter how you slice it this is a clear anti-trust case that needs to be decided in court.
- taylodl 2y ago
  They're an advisor. Companies are under no obligation to heed their advice. So no, there's no anti-trust case at all and as such this case should be summarily dismissed.

quantified 2y ago

Would it be illegal for any one company to not advertise in order to damage its business? How about individuals? Is my not buying a Tesla in order to deny that revenue to the Musk world considered illegal?

talldayo 2y ago

I think that's a proportionally relevant response to inviting extremists and brand risks onto your platform.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

anonbanker 2y ago

[flagged]

wtfwhateven 2y ago
It is literally not X's position.
- dingosity 2y ago
  "literally" literally doesn't mean "literally" any more.