• by Wendy Davis  @wendyndavis, February 24, 2025

The World Federation of Advertisers, WPP's GroupM and spirits marketer Diageo have asked a federal judge to throw out a lawsuit by Rumble, which claims they wrongly conspired to deprive the conservative video-sharing platform of ad revenue.

Rumble’s complaint “does not plausibly allege either an agreement, a relevant market, or a harm to competition,” the advertising group and others contend in papers filed Friday with U.S. District Court Judge Jane Boyle in Wichita Falls, Texas.

“Rumble's claims are instead an attempt to force defendants to do business with Rumble despite many competitive reasons not to do so,” they add. “Rumble should not be allowed to weaponize the antitrust laws to create that business relationship and force advertisers to speak on its platform (notwithstanding their First Amendment rights).”

Their motion comes in response to an antitrust case brought by Rumble in August -- the same day that Elon Musk's X Corp. sued the World Federation of Advertisers, its now defunct brand safety initiative Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM), and others over an alleged “advertiser boycott.”

Both suits came soon after the Republican-led House Judiciary Committee issued a report accusing GARM of coordinating action by corporations, ad agencies and other industry groups in order to “demonetize platforms, podcasts, news outlets, and other content deemed disfavored by GARM and its members.”

Established in 2019 by the World Federation of Advertisers, GARM members included large brand advertisers and trade associations, including the U.S.'s Association of National Advertisers, American Association of Advertising Agencies and Interactive Advertising Bureau, as well as big agencies such as Dentsu, GroupM, Havas Media, IPG, Omnicom Media Group and Publicis Media.

A spokesperson for the World Federation of Advertisers said last year that allegations that GARM engaged in anti-competitive behavior are baseless.

“GARM creates voluntary industry standards on brand safety and suitability which media sellers and ad tech companies can voluntarily adopt, adapt or reject,” the spokesperson said. “This in turn allows advertisers to make choices similar to the way they buy advertising in TV, print or radio. GARM’s work focuses on voluntary monetization standards while establishing voluntary steps to improve transparency on content moderation and platform design.”

Rumble alleged in its complaint that GARM, GroupM and others “agreed not to place client advertisements on platforms like Rumble that do not adopt GARM’s one-size-fits-all brand safety standards.”

The company added that it does not “implement policies based on GARM’s preferred brand safety standards,” but instead “offers advertisers flexibility to choose the types of content and individual content creators that their advertisements appear alongside.”

Rumble also alleged that it has attracted new users and content creators between 2020 and 2023, but “has not seen a growth in advertising revenue commensurate to its growth in user popularity.”

The platform additionally said it “has made multiple attempts to form a commercial relationship” with GroupM but “has never received a meaningful response.”

Rumble also allegedly “reached out multiple times” to Diageo, which “rejected each of Rumble’s attempts at outreach, stating that Diageo would not advertise on Rumble because Diageo had adopted strict brand safety standards.”

The World Federation of Advertisers, GroupM and Diageo argue in their new motion that the complaint should be dismissed for several reasons -- including that allegations regarding GroupM and Diageo, if true, would only show that the companies decided separately to refrain from placing ads on Rumble.

“The entire basis for Rumble’s claims is the assertion that defendants were part of a group boycott against Rumble,” they argue. “Yet, conspicuously absent is any allegation that defendants directly agreed to not advertise on Rumble.”

They add that the brand safety agreement -- which they submitted to the judge in an appendix -- “does not identify Rumble (or any other platform) as inappropriate for advertising or any brand-safety measures as being required.”

“It merely identifies content that is inappropriate for advertising support (like child pornography, illegal activity, terrorism, etc.),” the World Federation of Advertisers and others write.

“It does not state that advertisers must adhere to the Brand Safety Framework or boycott any platform that fails to do so. Nor does it establish any consequences if an advertiser ignores the Brand Safety Framework.”

They also contend that courts in Texas lack jurisdiction over the suit, arguing that none of the parties in the case are based in that state. Rumble is based in Toronto and its U.S. division is based in Florida.

Rumble is expected to respond to the arguments by April 15.