3 ms·
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
by 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 agoI suppose it could be seen as collusion.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- chii 2y agoBut is boycotts illegal? Consumer boycotts aren't illegal, so why is commercial boycott illegal?
- basementcat 2y agoPerhaps. 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 agoThere 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.