SoylentNews

c0lo [soylentnews.org] writes:

I find the arguments absolutely hilarious

The Verge has a better perspective [theverge.com]:

X files antitrust lawsuit against advertisers over ‘illegal boycott’

X is suing a group of major advertisers over accusations that they held an “illegal boycott” against the platform formerly known as Twitter. In a lawsuit filed on Tuesday, X claims Unilever, Mars, CVS, Ørsted, and dozens of other brands conspired to “collectively withhold billions of dollars in advertising revenue” through a World Federation of Advertisers (WFA) industry initiative.

To join the WFA’s initiative, called the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM), companies must agree to withhold advertising from social platforms that aren’t compliant with the organization’s safety standards. X alleges GARM “organized an advertiser boycott of Twitter” to coerce the company into following the initiative’s safety standards. The lawsuit is being filed despite X announcing that it was “excited” to rejoin GARM last month.

“The evidence and facts are on our side,” X CEO Linda Yaccarino said in a video posted to X. “They conspired to boycott X, which threatens our ability to thrive in the future. That puts your global Town Square — the one place that you can express yourself freely and openly — at long-term risk.” ^{LOL-LMAO-ROFLcopter}

...

It’s not clear how well X’s lawsuit will fare in court because, as pointed out by Techdirt, the ability to choose where to advertise is protected under the First Amendment. The ad tech watchdog group Check My Ads similarly states that advertisers have the right “to not send money to a platform that promotes hate and conspiracies.”

Original Submission