5 ms·

X (Twitter) Sues Former Advertisers

36 points by agiacalone 2y ago

JohnFen 2y ago
Wow, that's crazy-town even for Musk. They keep using the term "illegal" to refer to everyone's right to decide who they will or won't do business with. I'm eagerly anticipating hearing what law(s) Musk thinks were broken. This looks for all the world like a desperation move.
- ralferoo 2y ago
  Yeah, he might have a case if they were all trying to collectively negotiate a massive discount. But when they all walk away and effectively say "enough is enough, we're done here" and have zero interest in returning to advertise whatever the price, there's no basis for a case.
  - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
    > Musk’s X has filed an antitrust lawsuit against a trade group and several advertisers, alleging they conspired to withhold “billions” of dollars in ad spending over concerns that X would “deviate from certain brand safety standards for advertising.” Yeah, if you're carrying stuff that I don't think is safe for my brand to associate with, that's not "withholding" advertising from you. That's me saying that your site has become a cesspool, and I don't want to get any of it on my brand. You didn't have a right to my advertising that I'm unjustly "withholding" from you. There is (or the lawsuit claims there is) an active House Judiciary Committee investigation of GARM (the trade organization in question), for whatever that's worth. My take: I don't know the legal ins and outs on this. But Musk sounds like he thinks he's entitled to our ad dollars. That doesn't seem likely to attract more business - rather the opposite. (If you're going to sue people who once advertised and don't any more, then maybe it's better if I never start advertising on your platform in the first place.)
    - JohnFen 2y ago
      > But Musk sounds like he thinks he's entitled to our ad dollars. That's what, in my view, makes the whole thing insane. The very idea that companies (or people) have some sort of obligation to spend their advertising dollars in any particular outlet is very hard to comprehend. I don't know, but I'd be willing to bet that Musk is a person who believes that spending money is a form of free speech. If that's the case, then how does he square the idea of "free speech" with the notion of "compelled speech"?
  - ralferoo 2y ago
    And contradicting myself, I found this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refusal_to_deal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refusal_to_deal > Though in general, each business may decide with whom they wish to transact, there are some situations when a refusal to deal may be considered an unlawful anti-competitive practice, if it prevents or reduces competition in a market. The unlawful behaviour may involve two or more companies refusing to use, buy from or otherwise deal with a person or business, such as a competitor, for the purpose of inflicting some economic loss on the target or otherwise force them out of the market. So I guess I don't know!
- blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
  Is it really crazy town? What he’s alleging here is that there is a cartel of advertisers that are behaving in anti-competitive ways. And I think that is obviously true when you look at how the ad agencies and their clients (whose spend is controlled by these agencies) act at the same time in politically charged situations. There are a few big ad agencies and they happen to control advertising through various means like their size, network effects, various practices, and also by trying to outsource their collusion into frameworks like GARM. I am honestly surprised at the hostile response to this from HN. The right to associate freely is not what is being debated here - the article clearly says this is about anti trust. Corporations do not have the right to just do whatever they want. But leaving aside the technicalities - the existence of powerful corporate lords that control what speech is allowed is just bad. If this situation were reversed, where a small group of powerful advertisers were colluding to suppress your speech, you would definitely be upset and not would not be defending corporate power hindering free speech, which is a foundational piece of democracy.
  - ab5tract 2y ago
    Ad agencies may consult with corporations as to whether a given venue is worth their investment. However, it is ultimately up to the company whether they follow that advice. They don’t “control” the advertising spend for that corporation. According to the logic of this ruling, however, a corporation could be sued for deciding to stop spending ad money with a given agency.
    - ab5tract 2y ago
      Downvoting on HN was never supposed to be about punishing inconvenient truths.
  - JohnFen 2y ago
    > the article clearly says this is about anti trust. Yes, I just don't see how anti-trust laws apply here. > Corporations do not have the right to just do whatever they want. Correct. And the main thing (in terms of cartel/monopoly behavior) is that they can't abuse a monopoly position in order to give themselves an unfair advantage. If they avoid doing that, it's entirely legal to be a cartel or monopoly. I am failing to see how choosing not to do business with Twitter is giving themselves any kind of unfair advantage. > If this situation were reversed, where a small group of powerful advertisers were colluding to suppress your speech, you would definitely be upset I certainly would! But I don't think that's what's happening here. Nobody's speech is being curtailed here. It's companies choosing what sort of thing they do and don't want to be associated with. Twitter can continue to do whatever it likes, and even if there are enough advertisers avoiding it that it ends up putting the company out of business (which I seriously doubt), everyone on it can still speak freely as they always could. They'll just use any of the numerous other outlets to do that with. In any case, we're just the peanut gallery and what we think isn't actually important. It's what happens in court, and in court, I am very confident that Musk will lose hard.
agiacalone 2y ago
https://archive.is/8LB7U https://archive.is/8LB7U
dimator 2y ago
Advertisers can choose where to spend the ad bucks, based on absolutely any criteria, how is this lawsuit even a thing? I would bet that law firms love fragile rich people. "Sure, we'll write up that lawsuit for you, bill coming soon!"
gamblor956 2y ago
Note that Musk deliberately filed this in a federal district court known for its extreme far-right rulings. Expect the district court judge to play along. It's possible the 5th Circuit may go along with this farce as well (several of the panels would gladly give Musk whatever he wants, but if it goes to an en banc review it's unlikely the full bench would agree), but even the current SCOTUS wouldn't rule in Musk's favor.
- _yb2s 2y ago
  I can’t imagine anything less “far right” then the government telling companies how to spend advertising money
  - hot_pockets 2y ago
    I think the current iteration of the far right is much more of a social movement than it is about principles of governing. Elon himself is right wing and uses his resources to support the movement, so a (bad) judge that is aligned with him could give him favorable treating in service of the culture war.
    - thejazzman 2y ago
      > is right wing I still think it's funny he publicly changed political parties immediately after his horse sex scandal came out. And even funnier how they welcomed him despite the direct contradiction to their stated beliefs. I don't really see him as "right wing" so much as exploiting the right wing. But maybe those two things are synonymous anymore.
  - gamblor956 2y ago
    Both the far right and far left are defined by the excessive control of government over private activity. The differences lie in why. The judge in this federal district court is known for his rulings attempting to impose Christian theocracy on Americans.
  - guax 2y ago
    Far right is authoritarian. One of its most basic tenants is to tell how others should live and interact. It's not about liberty in general, just for a privileged group to enjoy a liberty beyond the reasonable, that include companies. One of the things we hear the us conservatives, not even far right yet is to boycott brands because of inclusive ads for example. It's in their righ, but shows that the ideology is not about freedom of expression but control of speech and action.
ChrisArchitect 2y ago
[dupe] Some more discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41173217 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41173217
tracerbulletx 2y ago
Refusal to Deal is generally something like trying to force a supplier to only work with you and not your competitor. This is nothing like that. Also good luck getting new companies to advertise with you now that they know you sue people who stop.

36 points by agiacalone 2y ago

Wow, that's crazy-town even for Musk. They keep using the term "illegal" to refer to everyone's right to decide who they will or won't do business with. I'm eagerly anticipating hearing what law(s) Musk thinks were broken. This looks for all the world like a desperation move.

ralferoo 2y ago
Yeah, he might have a case if they were all trying to collectively negotiate a massive discount. But when they all walk away and effectively say "enough is enough, we're done here" and have zero interest in returning to advertise whatever the price, there's no basis for a case.
- AnimalMuppet 2y ago
  > Musk’s X has filed an antitrust lawsuit against a trade group and several advertisers, alleging they conspired to withhold “billions” of dollars in ad spending over concerns that X would “deviate from certain brand safety standards for advertising.” Yeah, if you're carrying stuff that I don't think is safe for my brand to associate with, that's not "withholding" advertising from you. That's me saying that your site has become a cesspool, and I don't want to get any of it on my brand. You didn't have a right to my advertising that I'm unjustly "withholding" from you. There is (or the lawsuit claims there is) an active House Judiciary Committee investigation of GARM (the trade organization in question), for whatever that's worth. My take: I don't know the legal ins and outs on this. But Musk sounds like he thinks he's entitled to our ad dollars. That doesn't seem likely to attract more business - rather the opposite. (If you're going to sue people who once advertised and don't any more, then maybe it's better if I never start advertising on your platform in the first place.)
  - JohnFen 2y ago
    > But Musk sounds like he thinks he's entitled to our ad dollars. That's what, in my view, makes the whole thing insane. The very idea that companies (or people) have some sort of obligation to spend their advertising dollars in any particular outlet is very hard to comprehend. I don't know, but I'd be willing to bet that Musk is a person who believes that spending money is a form of free speech. If that's the case, then how does he square the idea of "free speech" with the notion of "compelled speech"?
- ralferoo 2y ago
  And contradicting myself, I found this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refusal_to_deal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refusal_to_deal > Though in general, each business may decide with whom they wish to transact, there are some situations when a refusal to deal may be considered an unlawful anti-competitive practice, if it prevents or reduces competition in a market. The unlawful behaviour may involve two or more companies refusing to use, buy from or otherwise deal with a person or business, such as a competitor, for the purpose of inflicting some economic loss on the target or otherwise force them out of the market. So I guess I don't know!
blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
Is it really crazy town? What he’s alleging here is that there is a cartel of advertisers that are behaving in anti-competitive ways. And I think that is obviously true when you look at how the ad agencies and their clients (whose spend is controlled by these agencies) act at the same time in politically charged situations. There are a few big ad agencies and they happen to control advertising through various means like their size, network effects, various practices, and also by trying to outsource their collusion into frameworks like GARM. I am honestly surprised at the hostile response to this from HN. The right to associate freely is not what is being debated here - the article clearly says this is about anti trust. Corporations do not have the right to just do whatever they want. But leaving aside the technicalities - the existence of powerful corporate lords that control what speech is allowed is just bad. If this situation were reversed, where a small group of powerful advertisers were colluding to suppress your speech, you would definitely be upset and not would not be defending corporate power hindering free speech, which is a foundational piece of democracy.
- ab5tract 2y ago
  Ad agencies may consult with corporations as to whether a given venue is worth their investment. However, it is ultimately up to the company whether they follow that advice. They don’t “control” the advertising spend for that corporation. According to the logic of this ruling, however, a corporation could be sued for deciding to stop spending ad money with a given agency.
  - ab5tract 2y ago
    Downvoting on HN was never supposed to be about punishing inconvenient truths.
- JohnFen 2y ago
  > the article clearly says this is about anti trust. Yes, I just don't see how anti-trust laws apply here. > Corporations do not have the right to just do whatever they want. Correct. And the main thing (in terms of cartel/monopoly behavior) is that they can't abuse a monopoly position in order to give themselves an unfair advantage. If they avoid doing that, it's entirely legal to be a cartel or monopoly. I am failing to see how choosing not to do business with Twitter is giving themselves any kind of unfair advantage. > If this situation were reversed, where a small group of powerful advertisers were colluding to suppress your speech, you would definitely be upset I certainly would! But I don't think that's what's happening here. Nobody's speech is being curtailed here. It's companies choosing what sort of thing they do and don't want to be associated with. Twitter can continue to do whatever it likes, and even if there are enough advertisers avoiding it that it ends up putting the company out of business (which I seriously doubt), everyone on it can still speak freely as they always could. They'll just use any of the numerous other outlets to do that with. In any case, we're just the peanut gallery and what we think isn't actually important. It's what happens in court, and in court, I am very confident that Musk will lose hard.

agiacalone 2y ago

https://archive.is/8LB7U https://archive.is/8LB7U

dimator 2y ago

Advertisers can choose where to spend the ad bucks, based on absolutely any criteria, how is this lawsuit even a thing? I would bet that law firms love fragile rich people. "Sure, we'll write up that lawsuit for you, bill coming soon!"

gamblor956 2y ago

Note that Musk deliberately filed this in a federal district court known for its extreme far-right rulings. Expect the district court judge to play along. It's possible the 5th Circuit may go along with this farce as well (several of the panels would gladly give Musk whatever he wants, but if it goes to an en banc review it's unlikely the full bench would agree), but even the current SCOTUS wouldn't rule in Musk's favor.

_yb2s 2y ago
I can’t imagine anything less “far right” then the government telling companies how to spend advertising money
- hot_pockets 2y ago
  I think the current iteration of the far right is much more of a social movement than it is about principles of governing. Elon himself is right wing and uses his resources to support the movement, so a (bad) judge that is aligned with him could give him favorable treating in service of the culture war.
  - thejazzman 2y ago
    > is right wing I still think it's funny he publicly changed political parties immediately after his horse sex scandal came out. And even funnier how they welcomed him despite the direct contradiction to their stated beliefs. I don't really see him as "right wing" so much as exploiting the right wing. But maybe those two things are synonymous anymore.
- gamblor956 2y ago
  Both the far right and far left are defined by the excessive control of government over private activity. The differences lie in why. The judge in this federal district court is known for his rulings attempting to impose Christian theocracy on Americans.
- guax 2y ago
  Far right is authoritarian. One of its most basic tenants is to tell how others should live and interact. It's not about liberty in general, just for a privileged group to enjoy a liberty beyond the reasonable, that include companies. One of the things we hear the us conservatives, not even far right yet is to boycott brands because of inclusive ads for example. It's in their righ, but shows that the ideology is not about freedom of expression but control of speech and action.

ChrisArchitect 2y ago

[dupe] Some more discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41173217 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41173217

tracerbulletx 2y ago

Refusal to Deal is generally something like trying to force a supplier to only work with you and not your competitor. This is nothing like that. Also good luck getting new companies to advertise with you now that they know you sue people who stop.