3 ms·

My understanding of the Sherman Act’s restrictions on collective boycotting is that they depend on evidence of non-competitive collusion between companies that

My understanding of the Sherman Act’s restrictions on collective boycotting is that they depend on evidence of non-competitive collusion between companies that would ordinarily compete in a market. But GARM’s actions don’t on face value meet either prong of that definition: it’s not clear that the companies have colluded to boycott Twitter, or that buying ad space on Twitter is comparable to competing in their actual market segments (the things they’re buying advertising space for). Or to make it intuitive: seeing that your competitors also don’t pay for a service isn’t collusion; it’s market research. But even if these conditions were somehow met: what’s the legal relief here? Surely a court can’t compel Coca-Cola (or whoever) into a minimum amount of ad spending on a particular social media site.

delichon 2y ago
> But what turns this into illegal collusion, the X lawsuit argues, is when businesses make those decisions contingent on cooperation with competitors. So the same as for price fixing. It's legal to set your own price, but can be illegal to agree to do that with competitors even at the same price.
- woodruffw 2y ago
  I’m not seeing where it’s evidenced that this is what’s actually happening. Twitter’s lawyers can put whatever rationale they want in their suit, but it’s not even remotely clear to me that company $FOO only stopped advertising on Twitter because they conferred with competitor $BAR. If anything, the fact that the lawsuit is against CAGM indicates the opposite: $FOO observed a general disinvestment in advertising on Twitter, and deduced through normal market research that their ad spend wasn’t worth it. Maybe discovery will reveal collusion here, but it relies on an unlikely premise: companies with significant ad spend have entire teams dedicated to PR, and it would be astonishing if they couldn’t provide independent internal research demonstrating the risk Twitter posed to their brand as a sufficient reason to stop paying for ads.
  - Jensson 2y ago
    > companies with significant ad spend have entire teams dedicated to PR, and it would be astonishing if they couldn’t provide independent internal research demonstrating the risk Twitter posed to their brand as a sufficient reason to stop paying for ads. Do you really believe that hundreds of social science teams would reach the same conclusion at the same time independently of each other, like these hundreds of advertisers did? Social science isn't that exact, there would be big brands not leaving if they acted independently, or at least they wouldn't all leave at the same time.
    - ceejayoz 2y ago
      We aren’t talking peer reviewed scientific journals here. “Shit is bad on Twitter” is a conclusion many people may independently reach at similar times if the change is rapid. Like how natural selection and calculus were discovered by multiple people at roughly the same time. They weren’t in cahoots.
    - woodruffw 2y ago
      No; I believe that these companies have advertising teams that monitor the value of their investments, and that these teams are excruciatingly attuned to potential brand risks. You don’t need imperfect social science to understand that the majority of your consumers don’t like it when your ads appear next to content that looks like it could have come from Der Sturmer.
      - ryandrake 2y ago
        Yea, it doesn't take a crack social science team or shadowy conspiracy to figure out that most brands do not want to be associated with the alt-right and everything in the alt-right's orbit. It is totally plausible that thousands of companies would come to the same conclusion without conspiring together.
netsharc 2y ago
[flagged]
qingcharles 2y ago
I found the case and checked the prayer for relief to see what they are asking for. Declaration that the so-called collusion was illegal, money damages, and an injunction to stop them from further colluding to not buy ads. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69017972/x-corp-v-world-federation-of-advertisers/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69017972/x-corp-v-world...
- bagels 2y ago
  The last bit... Surely the court wouldn't want to force these companies to continue to advertise against their will on a platform that can sue them for not advertising? Monetary damage make sense if twitter prevails though.
  - blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
    The last bit is to stop collusion, not to stop genuine independent decisions.

delichon 2y ago

> But what turns this into illegal collusion, the X lawsuit argues, is when businesses make those decisions contingent on cooperation with competitors. So the same as for price fixing. It's legal to set your own price, but can be illegal to agree to do that with competitors even at the same price.

woodruffw 2y ago
I’m not seeing where it’s evidenced that this is what’s actually happening. Twitter’s lawyers can put whatever rationale they want in their suit, but it’s not even remotely clear to me that company $FOO only stopped advertising on Twitter because they conferred with competitor $BAR. If anything, the fact that the lawsuit is against CAGM indicates the opposite: $FOO observed a general disinvestment in advertising on Twitter, and deduced through normal market research that their ad spend wasn’t worth it. Maybe discovery will reveal collusion here, but it relies on an unlikely premise: companies with significant ad spend have entire teams dedicated to PR, and it would be astonishing if they couldn’t provide independent internal research demonstrating the risk Twitter posed to their brand as a sufficient reason to stop paying for ads.
- Jensson 2y ago
  > companies with significant ad spend have entire teams dedicated to PR, and it would be astonishing if they couldn’t provide independent internal research demonstrating the risk Twitter posed to their brand as a sufficient reason to stop paying for ads. Do you really believe that hundreds of social science teams would reach the same conclusion at the same time independently of each other, like these hundreds of advertisers did? Social science isn't that exact, there would be big brands not leaving if they acted independently, or at least they wouldn't all leave at the same time.
  - ceejayoz 2y ago
    We aren’t talking peer reviewed scientific journals here. “Shit is bad on Twitter” is a conclusion many people may independently reach at similar times if the change is rapid. Like how natural selection and calculus were discovered by multiple people at roughly the same time. They weren’t in cahoots.
  - woodruffw 2y ago
    No; I believe that these companies have advertising teams that monitor the value of their investments, and that these teams are excruciatingly attuned to potential brand risks. You don’t need imperfect social science to understand that the majority of your consumers don’t like it when your ads appear next to content that looks like it could have come from Der Sturmer.
    - ryandrake 2y ago
      Yea, it doesn't take a crack social science team or shadowy conspiracy to figure out that most brands do not want to be associated with the alt-right and everything in the alt-right's orbit. It is totally plausible that thousands of companies would come to the same conclusion without conspiring together.

netsharc 2y ago

[flagged]

qingcharles 2y ago

I found the case and checked the prayer for relief to see what they are asking for. Declaration that the so-called collusion was illegal, money damages, and an injunction to stop them from further colluding to not buy ads. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69017972/x-corp-v-world-federation-of-advertisers/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69017972/x-corp-v-world...

bagels 2y ago
The last bit... Surely the court wouldn't want to force these companies to continue to advertise against their will on a platform that can sue them for not advertising? Monetary damage make sense if twitter prevails though.
- blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
  The last bit is to stop collusion, not to stop genuine independent decisions.