• by Wendy Davis , Staff Writer, April 15, 2026

Last year, when the Federal Trade Commission approved Omnicom's merger with Interpublic, the commission prohibited the holding company from considering media businesses' "political or ideological viewpoints" when purchasing ad inventory -- except at clients' direction.

Now, the agency and eight states have reached a proposed antitrust settlement with Dentsu, Publicis and WPP on similar terms.

In addition to the ban on considering political viewpoints, the proposed deals would forbid the holding companies from directing ad buys based on media companies' "adherence to journalistic standards or ethics established or set by a third party," or companies' commitment to diversity, equity or inclusion.

The proposed deals also prohibit the holding companies from using blacklists, whitelists or "other means of differentiating between media publishers," unless those lists were "developed at the express direction of a particular client."

The FTC and states suggested in an antitrust complaint unveiled Wednesday that the agencies' brand safety initiatives -- meaning their attempts to prevent clients' ads from subsidizing offensive content -- violated people's right to free speech. 

"Over the last decade, untold numbers of Americans have been censored online and prevented from taking part in critically important political and social debates," the complaint against the holding companies alleges.

"Much online censorship in recent years resulted from social media firms and other digital platforms that suspended or banned users, algorithmically downranked news articles, demonetized content creators, and imposed 'warning labels' on online posts," the FTC and states continue. "But there were parallel efforts by various interested parties to demonetize disfavored conservative news and opinion sites by denying them digital advertising revenue."

The complaint goes on to cite examples of the way "interested parties" tried to "demonetize" sites.

For instance, according to the complaint, the group Media Matters for America allegedly attempted "to pressure advertisers to remove their advertising" from companies including Elon Musk's X.

For the record, the Media Matters report dealt with Nazi content on X. The watchdog said in November 2023 that ads Apple, Bravo, IBM, Oracle and other brands were being placed next to pro-Nazi posts on X. (Musk sued Media Matters over that report; Media Matters is fighting that lawsuit.)

Despite the FTC's spin, judges have repeatedly ruled that the First Amendment only prohibits the government, not private companies, from suppressing speech.

As recently as 2024, the Supreme Court said social media companies have First Amendment rights to wield control over content on their platforms.

The First Amendment “does not go on leave when social media are involved,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote at the time.

The portion of the settlements that prohibits holding companies from considering whether publications follow "journalistic standards" appears to directly target the news ratings service NewsGuard, which is currently suing the FTC over the Omnicom merger order.

NewsGuard claims in that case that the FTC "is brazenly using its power not for any issue concerning trade or commerce, but rather to censor speech."

When asked whether NewsGuard plans to object to the new proposed, co-CEO Gordon Crovitz said through a spokesperson, "Just as we sued the FTC for its unconstitutional jawboning of Omnicom to get it to agree not to provide brand-safety tools to its clients as the price of getting its merger with IPG approved, we will protect our First Amendment rights to engage in the journalism of assessing websites and the rights of advertisers to decide where their ads should run."