Advertising coalition has announced the suspension of its brand safety unit, effective immediately after Elon Musk’s X sued the group. In the federal lawsuit, X accuses the World Federation of Advertisers (WFA) of orchestrating an illegal ad boycott that allegedly harmed the platform's financial stability.
WFA confirmed on Thursday, August 8, that it would disband its nonprofit initiative, Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM).
Legal Controversy And Antitrust Allegations
The lawsuit, filed in the Northern District of Texas, targets the WFA along with several of its member companies, including Unilever, Mars, and CVS Health. X’s legal team claims that the WFA engaged in anti-competitive practices and conspired to undermine X's ad revenue. This move follows prior allegations by the Republican-led House Judiciary Committee, which accused GARM of restricting consumer choices and potentially violating antitrust laws.
Russell Dye, a spokesperson for the House Judiciary panel, called the suspension of GARM “a big win for the first amendment and a big win for Chairman Jordan’s oversight work.”
X CEO Linda Yaccarino posted on X:
“This is an important acknowledgement and a necessary step in the right direction. I am hopeful that it means ecosystem-wide reform is coming.”
Since Elon Musk's $44 billion acquisition of Twitter in 2022, numerous advertisers have paused their campaigns due to concerns about increased hate speech and other problematic content on the platform. Musk famously responded to these advertisers with defiance, suggesting they attempted to blackmail him by halting ad spending.
The controversy has extended beyond X’s lawsuit against the WFA. The platform has also taken legal action against watchdog organizations such as Media Matters and the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH). A California judge recently dismissed X's lawsuit against CCDH, noting it seemed to punish the defendants for their critical speech.
Ruben Schreurs, Chief Strategy Officer at media marketing group Ebiquity, criticized X’s lawsuit as an example of "weaponized litigation." He suggested that such actions are more about stifling dissent and disrupting efforts to create a safer online environment, particularly for children. Schreurs believes the lawsuit against the WFA will likely be dismissed but remains concerned about the broader implications of these aggressive legal strategies.
