Elon Musk's X Corp. late Wednesday
urged a federal appellate court to revive his antitrust complaint against 10 advertisers that supposedly engaged in a "group boycott" of the platform.
"This case involves an
unusually brazen group boycott," X argues in papers filed with the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. "That misconduct has drawn the attention of regulators and Congress. There is no valid reason that this
effort by the direct victim to recover its massive economic losses from that boycott should not move forward."
X is asking the 5th Circuit to reverse a decision by U.S.
District Court Judge Jane Boyle, who threw out the tech platform's lawsuit
earlier this year.
advertisement
advertisement
The battle dates to 2024, when Musk's X 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 -- 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; toy
maker Lego; and social platform Pinterest -- for allegedly conspiring with GARM to deprive X of ad dollars.
X's ad revenue has plummeted since its 2022 acquisition by Musk. SpaceX -- which now
includes the remnants of what was Twitter -- reported $367 million in
advertising revenue for the second quarter of 2026. By contrast, Twitter reported $1.076 billion in its last publicly traded quarter in 2022.
X recently resolved its dispute with the World Federation of Advertisers, but not
with the individual advertisers named as defendants.
X's complaint alleged that between November 2022 and December 2022, at least 18 GARM-members stopped advertising on
Twitter, and that “dozens” of other members “substantially reduced” their advertising. The suit came around three weeks 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 shuttered GARM in August, days
after Musk sued. The trade organization has repeatedly said GARM's brand safety standards were voluntary, and that members were free to accept or reject those standards.
When
Boyle dismissed the case, she said X's allegations, even if proven true, wouldn't show that the advertisers violated antitrust law.
Boyle gave two reasons for that part of the
ruling. The first was X didn't allege that the defendants intended to boost one of X's rivals by engaging in the supposed boycott. The other was that the defendants weren't alleged to have tried to
stop others from advertising on X.
X, now represented
by former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement, is now arguing to the 5th Circuit that it should have been allowed to proceed with its complaint against the advertisers.
Among
other contentions, the company says the alleged agreement between the defendants "restrained trade in the market for digital advertising on social-media platforms, both in the United States and
globally."
"The boycott both injured X and competition in that market, allowing other social-media platforms to charge rates above truly competitive pricing," X argues.
The company also points to allegations that the defendants harmed X's ability to compete with other platforms by depriving it of ad revenue.
"Advertising
revenue is the lifeblood of the social media industry," X says. "And through their own actions (and the influence they wielded over others), defendants severely restricted the flow of advertising
revenue to X."
X adds: "Where a boycott cuts off a victim’s access to an element necessary to compete, that reality also counsels in favor of a ... violation."
The advertisers are expected to file a response next month.