• by Wendy Davis , Yesterday

Advertisers are pressing a federal judge to throw out Elon Musk's suit over a supposed ad boycott on X -- arguing that the allegations against them, even if true, would not warrant the conclusion that they conspired to deprive the platform of ad revenue.

"This suit is a naked attempt by X to win at the courthouse business it lost in the free market," the World Federation of Advertisers and 10 advertisers argue in papers filed late last week with U.S. District Court Judge Jane Boyle in Wichita Falls, Texas.

"The only plausible inference from the alleged facts is that defendants made individual decisions about their individual advertising plans," they add.

Their new papers come in a legal dispute dating to August 2024, when Musk's X Corp. alleged that the Belgian-based World Federation of Advertisers and its now defunct brand safety initiative, Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM), sparked a “massive advertiser boycott” that cost the company billions in ad revenue.

Musk also sued advertisers, alleging that they schemed with GARM to deprive X of ad dollars.

The current version of the complaint, which has been amended twice, names 10 advertisers -- energy companies Ørsted (based in Denmark) and Shell; food giants Mars, Nestle and Tyson; healthcare company CVS; pharmaceutical firm Abbott; toothpaste and personal care brand Colgate-Palmolive; toymaker Lego; and social platform Pinterest.

X sued 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.”

The World Federation of Advertisers and others initially asked Boyle to dismiss the case in May, arguing in a written motion that antitrust principles don't “presume an illegal conspiracy when advertisers make rational, independent business decisions.”

X urged Boyle to reject that argument, claiming in papers filed in July that the House Judiciary Committee's report provided "smoking gun" evidence of a conspiracy.

According to that report, Ørsted contacted GARM in November 2022 to inquire about a potential boycott of X.

The following April, an employee of Ørsted said in an email to the WFA and others, including GARM leader Rob Rakowitz: “Based on your recommendations, we have stopped all paid advertisement” on X, according to the committee report.

Rakowitz emailed a response denying that GARM or the WFA had recommended that Ørsted stop advertising, according to the report. Rakowitz also denied to the House committee that he had recommended that Ørsted stop advertising on Twitter.

The trade group and advertisers counter in their newest papers that Ørsted's email also said it stopped running paid ads on X "because the platform was rather unsafe due to Elon Musk’s decision of firing a lot of resources.”

"Read in full, the email demonstrates Ørsted’s independent assessment that advertising on Twitter was unwise," they argue.

The World Federation of Advertisers -- which shuttered GARM last year -- has repeatedly said GARM's brand safety standards were voluntary, and that members were free to accept or reject those standards.

The trade group and advertisers reiterate that argument in their newest bid for dismissal.

"X does not (and cannot) allege or identify any so-called 'GARM Rules' that required or called for a boycott," they write, adding that there were no "GARM Rules."

The companies and trade group also raise other arguments, including that the lawsuit doesn't belong in the Northern District of Texas.

Last month, Boyle dismissed a similar ad boycott suit brought by Rumble against the World Federation of Advertisers, WPP Media (formerly GroupM) and spirits marketer Diageo, ruling that courts in Texas lack jurisdiction over the dispute.

"None of the allegations that gave rise to this lawsuit occurred in Texas," Boyle wrote in that matter.

The companies sued by Musk argue that his suit should be dismissed for the same reason.