12 ms·

Are companies legally obligated to use X for advertising? Can someone explain to me what about a boycott is unlawful or unfair?

Jeremy1026 2y ago
The argument is that the brands worked together to form the boycott, and that is the what makes it illegal/unfair. Even that feels like a stretch to be lawsuit worthy and even more of a stretch to being a winnable lawsuit.
- al_borland 2y ago
  I suppose it could be seen as collusion.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- chii 2y ago
  But is boycotts illegal? Consumer boycotts aren't illegal, so why is commercial boycott illegal?
  - basementcat 2y ago
    Perhaps. For example it may be illegal to boycott Israel in some jurisdictions. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-BDS_laws https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-BDS_laws
  - acdha 2y ago
    There are specific cases where coordination is illegal. The examples the FTC uses are all cases where businesses colluded to raise prices – for example, retailers boycotting manufacturers who also sold to a cheaper catalog reseller - and it’s hard to imagine that applying here since the objections weren’t tied to ad rates or kickbacks from a competing social media company. It’s not market distortion if Lego Group chooses not to buy ads on any platform where they can be displayed next to hate speech and Nestle says “us too”. https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/dealings-competitors/group-boycotts https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/gui... The big question here is whether the Republicans who run the FTC and courts are now willing to compel payment to a key donor’s service.
ipython 2y ago
Basically rich, powerful people feel empowered to use the legal system as a cudgel. Our new president has shown this approach works- as he has extracted multi million dollar settlements from Facebook and abc for hurting his feelings. I’ve had this done to me by a spiteful neighbor. It’s a terrible place to be, as defending yourself - even against a totally baseless lawsuit - can easily bankrupt an individual. Businesses find its cheaper to pay off than fight, as they are only focused on the bottom line (see for example the success of patent trolls, until brave individuals like Lee Cheng fought back, regardless of the cost)
- dralley 2y ago
  It's a bit more subtle than that. They're innovating on the frontiers of the science of bribery. If you get someone to pay you $25 million to "settle a civil lawsuit" that you filed against them, it's not a bribe, it's a settlement. It's effectively legally indemnified no matter how ridiculous the lawsuit is (and given that it's a collaborative effort of sorts, the reasonableness of the lawsuit is irrelevant).
  - ipython 2y ago
    Oh, absolutely. And they’ve managed to create multiple diverse income streams as well- so if this little racket is shut down, well we have a shitcoin for sale, or some branded sneakers, how about a bible or watch? Heck why not just have a publicly traded company with your name on it and no business fundamentals as another vehicle for grift. Any fraction of one of those schemes would have doomed a previous administration. Now we’ve become numb. It’s disappointing.
    - SlightlyLeftPad 2y ago
      So boycotting bad but racketeering/extortion good?
      - LaSombra 2y ago
        That seems to be the current narrative.
add-sub-mul-div 2y ago
He's an id loosely covered with skin. By now it's not necessary to stop and wonder if something like this makes legal or moral sense.
- mingus88 2y ago
  Much of what is going on right now makes sense through the lense of narcissistic injury and the associated narcissistic rage
  - SlightlyLeftPad 2y ago
    The mental fitness bar needs to be higher for the people with access to nuclear launch codes.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
The FTC has a page on this (https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/dealings-competitors/group-boycotts https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/gui...). Companies have a right to independently boycott whoever they’d like, but coordinated boycotts raise antitrust concerns, and Twitter argues that this boycott was strongly coordinated through the Global Alliance for Responsible Media. (The defendants deny this IIRC.)
- abrookewood 2y ago
  This comment needs more traction as it explains why this seemingly nonsensical claim may have merit.
whatever1 2y ago
Yes. If they do not advertise on X Trump will invade their countries. I also noticed that they did not donate to his inauguration. The case does not look good for them.
Justsignedup 2y ago
Musk has major influence in the legal system. The law is what he demands it is. There's a reason why everyone is settling with trump, gotta kiss the ring. Logically, your argument absolutely falls square into freedom of speech territory. But we do not live in logical times.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- sebazzz 2y ago
  > Musk has major influence in the legal system. The law is what he demands it is. What is the reasoning for this? If a law needs to be changed it first needs to be drawn up, needs to go through congress, etc.

Jeremy1026 2y ago

The argument is that the brands worked together to form the boycott, and that is the what makes it illegal/unfair. Even that feels like a stretch to be lawsuit worthy and even more of a stretch to being a winnable lawsuit.

al_borland 2y ago
I suppose it could be seen as collusion.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
chii 2y ago
But is boycotts illegal? Consumer boycotts aren't illegal, so why is commercial boycott illegal?
- basementcat 2y ago
  Perhaps. For example it may be illegal to boycott Israel in some jurisdictions. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-BDS_laws https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-BDS_laws
- acdha 2y ago
  There are specific cases where coordination is illegal. The examples the FTC uses are all cases where businesses colluded to raise prices – for example, retailers boycotting manufacturers who also sold to a cheaper catalog reseller - and it’s hard to imagine that applying here since the objections weren’t tied to ad rates or kickbacks from a competing social media company. It’s not market distortion if Lego Group chooses not to buy ads on any platform where they can be displayed next to hate speech and Nestle says “us too”. https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/dealings-competitors/group-boycotts https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/gui... The big question here is whether the Republicans who run the FTC and courts are now willing to compel payment to a key donor’s service.

ipython 2y ago

Basically rich, powerful people feel empowered to use the legal system as a cudgel. Our new president has shown this approach works- as he has extracted multi million dollar settlements from Facebook and abc for hurting his feelings. I’ve had this done to me by a spiteful neighbor. It’s a terrible place to be, as defending yourself - even against a totally baseless lawsuit - can easily bankrupt an individual. Businesses find its cheaper to pay off than fight, as they are only focused on the bottom line (see for example the success of patent trolls, until brave individuals like Lee Cheng fought back, regardless of the cost)

dralley 2y ago
It's a bit more subtle than that. They're innovating on the frontiers of the science of bribery. If you get someone to pay you $25 million to "settle a civil lawsuit" that you filed against them, it's not a bribe, it's a settlement. It's effectively legally indemnified no matter how ridiculous the lawsuit is (and given that it's a collaborative effort of sorts, the reasonableness of the lawsuit is irrelevant).
- ipython 2y ago
  Oh, absolutely. And they’ve managed to create multiple diverse income streams as well- so if this little racket is shut down, well we have a shitcoin for sale, or some branded sneakers, how about a bible or watch? Heck why not just have a publicly traded company with your name on it and no business fundamentals as another vehicle for grift. Any fraction of one of those schemes would have doomed a previous administration. Now we’ve become numb. It’s disappointing.
  - SlightlyLeftPad 2y ago
    So boycotting bad but racketeering/extortion good?
    - LaSombra 2y ago
      That seems to be the current narrative.

add-sub-mul-div 2y ago

He's an id loosely covered with skin. By now it's not necessary to stop and wonder if something like this makes legal or moral sense.

mingus88 2y ago
Much of what is going on right now makes sense through the lense of narcissistic injury and the associated narcissistic rage
- SlightlyLeftPad 2y ago
  The mental fitness bar needs to be higher for the people with access to nuclear launch codes.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]

SpicyLemonZest 2y ago

The FTC has a page on this (https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/dealings-competitors/group-boycotts https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/gui...). Companies have a right to independently boycott whoever they’d like, but coordinated boycotts raise antitrust concerns, and Twitter argues that this boycott was strongly coordinated through the Global Alliance for Responsible Media. (The defendants deny this IIRC.)

abrookewood 2y ago
This comment needs more traction as it explains why this seemingly nonsensical claim may have merit.

whatever1 2y ago

Yes. If they do not advertise on X Trump will invade their countries. I also noticed that they did not donate to his inauguration. The case does not look good for them.

Justsignedup 2y ago

Musk has major influence in the legal system. The law is what he demands it is. There's a reason why everyone is settling with trump, gotta kiss the ring. Logically, your argument absolutely falls square into freedom of speech territory. But we do not live in logical times.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
sebazzz 2y ago
> Musk has major influence in the legal system. The law is what he demands it is. What is the reasoning for this? If a law needs to be changed it first needs to be drawn up, needs to go through congress, etc.