Social Media Platform X Sues 'Advertising Cartel'
The social media platform X has launched a legal battle against a group they refer to as an 'advertising cartel.' According to an interim staff report from the House Judiciary Committee, this group has been manipulating online speech.
X's Tuesday lawsuit targets the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM) and some of its members, including CVS Health, Mars, Orsted, and Unilever. X alleges that these parties have used their influence over marketers and advertising agencies to discriminate against X, leading to an ad boycott.
The complaint states, "These actions were all against the unilateral self-interest of the advertisers; they made economic sense only in furtherance of a conspiracy performed in the confidence that competing advertisers were doing the same."
X's CEO, Linda Yaccarino, issued an open letter, stating that GARM's "behavior is a stain on a great industry, and cannot be allowed to continue." She also suggested that others may have suffered due to this activity. Yaccarino emphasized that the case is about more than just damages; it's about fixing a broken ecosystem that enables such illegal activity.
Rumble Joins X in Lawsuit
Shortly after X filed the lawsuit, video-sharing platform Rumble joined the lawsuit. The conspiracy revolves around the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM), which was created by the WFA. GARM established arbitrary standards for content on digital platforms where its members might want to advertise. These standards were used to instigate an advertiser boycott against Rumble and other platforms. The lawsuit also highlights GARM's extensive reach, including the six largest ad agency holding companies among its members.
The House report outlines a coordinated effort by the World Federation of Advertisers (WFA) and its Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM) initiative to demonetize and suppress disfavored content across the internet. GARM members colluded to reduce Twitter’s revenue after Elon Musk’s acquisition.
The WFA and GARM
The WFA, a global association representing over 150 of the world’s biggest brands and over 60 national advertiser associations, created GARM in 2019. This alliance quickly gained significant market power, representing roughly 90% of global advertising spend, which amounts to nearly one trillion dollars annually.
GARM’s Steer Team includes corporate heavyweights such as Unilever, Mars, Diageo, Procter & Gamble (P&G), GroupM, AB InBev, L'Oréal, Nestlé, IBM, Mastercard, and PepsiCo. These corporations not only wield immense economic influence but are now revealed to be leveraging this power to control online discourse under the guise of "brand safety."
Conservatives on Capitol Hill held a hearing last month to address complaints from conservative media firms, mainly the Daily Wire, that GARM was colluding with ad-buying giant GroupM to discourage clients from buying ads on their sites because of conservative politics.
The lawsuit refers to a report published earlier this month by the Republican-led House Judiciary Committee that argues that GARM used "shadowy corporate coordination" to silence conservatives.
The House Judiciary Committee under Chairman Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) is moving forward in demanding documents and records from leading companies utilizing the GARM system. This is a welcomed effort for anyone who is concerned over the use of these blacklisting systems to curtail free speech.
Rob Rakowitz, head of GARM, has been pushing GDI and embracing its work. Rakowitz wrote in an email to GARM members that he wanted to “ensure you’re working with an inclusion and exclusion list that is informed by trusted partners such as NewsGuard and GDI — both partners to GARM and many of our members.”
Rakowitz’s views on free speech are chilling and his work shows how these systems can be used to conceal bias in targeting the revenue of sites with opposing views.
Bottom Line
The threat against free speech today is being led by private groups seeking to exercise an unprecedented level of control over what people can read and discuss. What are your thoughts on this? Do you think this lawsuit will bring about any change? Share this article with your friends and let us know what you think. Don't forget to sign up for the Daily Briefing, which is every day at 6pm.
Social Media Platform X Sues 'Advertising Cartel'
The social media platform X has launched a legal battle against a group they refer to as an 'advertising cartel.' According to an interim staff report from the House Judiciary Committee, this group has been manipulating online speech.
X's Tuesday lawsuit targets the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM) and some of its members, including CVS Health, Mars, Orsted, and Unilever. X alleges that these parties have used their influence over marketers and advertising agencies to discriminate against X, leading to an ad boycott.
The complaint states, "These actions were all against the unilateral self-interest of the advertisers; they made economic sense only in furtherance of a conspiracy performed in the confidence that competing advertisers were doing the same."
X's CEO, Linda Yaccarino, issued an open letter, stating that GARM's "behavior is a stain on a great industry, and cannot be allowed to continue." She also suggested that others may have suffered due to this activity. Yaccarino emphasized that the case is about more than just damages; it's about fixing a broken ecosystem that enables such illegal activity.
Rumble Joins X in Lawsuit
Shortly after X filed the lawsuit, video-sharing platform Rumble joined the lawsuit. The conspiracy revolves around the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM), which was created by the WFA. GARM established arbitrary standards for content on digital platforms where its members might want to advertise. These standards were used to instigate an advertiser boycott against Rumble and other platforms. The lawsuit also highlights GARM's extensive reach, including the six largest ad agency holding companies among its members.
The House report outlines a coordinated effort by the World Federation of Advertisers (WFA) and its Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM) initiative to demonetize and suppress disfavored content across the internet. GARM members colluded to reduce Twitter’s revenue after Elon Musk’s acquisition.
The WFA and GARM
The WFA, a global association representing over 150 of the world’s biggest brands and over 60 national advertiser associations, created GARM in 2019. This alliance quickly gained significant market power, representing roughly 90% of global advertising spend, which amounts to nearly one trillion dollars annually.
GARM’s Steer Team includes corporate heavyweights such as Unilever, Mars, Diageo, Procter & Gamble (P&G), GroupM, AB InBev, L'Oréal, Nestlé, IBM, Mastercard, and PepsiCo. These corporations not only wield immense economic influence but are now revealed to be leveraging this power to control online discourse under the guise of "brand safety."
Conservatives on Capitol Hill held a hearing last month to address complaints from conservative media firms, mainly the Daily Wire, that GARM was colluding with ad-buying giant GroupM to discourage clients from buying ads on their sites because of conservative politics.
The lawsuit refers to a report published earlier this month by the Republican-led House Judiciary Committee that argues that GARM used "shadowy corporate coordination" to silence conservatives.
The House Judiciary Committee under Chairman Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) is moving forward in demanding documents and records from leading companies utilizing the GARM system. This is a welcomed effort for anyone who is concerned over the use of these blacklisting systems to curtail free speech.
Rob Rakowitz, head of GARM, has been pushing GDI and embracing its work. Rakowitz wrote in an email to GARM members that he wanted to “ensure you’re working with an inclusion and exclusion list that is informed by trusted partners such as NewsGuard and GDI — both partners to GARM and many of our members.”
Rakowitz’s views on free speech are chilling and his work shows how these systems can be used to conceal bias in targeting the revenue of sites with opposing views.
Bottom Line
The threat against free speech today is being led by private groups seeking to exercise an unprecedented level of control over what people can read and discuss. What are your thoughts on this? Do you think this lawsuit will bring about any change? Share this article with your friends and let us know what you think. Don't forget to sign up for the Daily Briefing, which is every day at 6pm.
