I am a little surprised this has defaulted to an assumption they can't afford the legals: They unquestionably can. Of all the targets to fight Musk is least equ

I am a little surprised this has defaulted to an assumption they can't afford the legals: They unquestionably can. Of all the targets to fight Musk is least equipped to out-spend the brands in question, if they are motivated. yes, he is a multi-billionaire but he would destroy his own wealth fighting this and it's a far from certain outcome: What possible world obligates somebody to advertise on your media? Never mind the collusive decision of an agency between them to decide not to do it, there has to be an underlying obligation to spend which I just cannot see. It's a very odd case. The reality is in the article: Its downside brand effect they're concerned about not the legals. They lose brand value by being attacked on X. I also think we're conflating X with Musk with Trump with "government backing" a bit much here. These players are all pretty transactional in the end, and Musk needs laundry done, and winds up buying unilever product, X has bathrooms and they stock Kimberly Clark and Tork product, The Government has long term contracts for supply to government offices and bases and use these products, but is anyone suggesting Trump has e.g. said he will inform the GAO to stop buying Unilever? If he did, I would think the brands legal case gets stronger not weaker. And again we all assume SCOTUS has an inclination to lean to Trumps world view in this. This isn't a civil rights matter, or DEI. It's two angry tigers fighting over a dead musk-ox at the water hole. SCOTUS would not automatically favour Trump or Musk on a matter of trade.