Elon Musk picked a fight with X’s own advertisers, and a federal judge has told him to sling his hook.
For those who came in late, Musk threw his toys out of the pram after leading brands decided they did not want to back a social notworking site that gave a platform to extreme-right views.
After Musk’s $44bn takeover of Twitter in 2022, later renamed X, big advertisers cut spend, helping drive a 50 per cent drop in ad revenue as worries grew about moderation.
In late 2023, X owner Elon Musk accused those who paused spending of blackmail and said they should “go fuck themselves”.
Musk claimed that it was an “illegal boycott” and sued the World Federation of Advertisers and a clutch of brands in 2024, accusing them of breaking competition law by coordinating an “illegal boycott” via an online safety initiative.
Amazon’s Twitch, Shell, Lego and Pinterest were among the defendants after X kept adding and dropping names from the complaint.
Texas district judge Jane Boyle dismissed the case against all defendants because X failed to show “antitrust injury”, such as a benefit to rival social media platforms.
District judge Jane Boyle said: “The very nature of the alleged conspiracy does not state an antitrust claim, and the court therefore has no qualm dismissing with prejudice.”
The defendants denied the claims, saying brands can choose where their advertising money goes, even if that means walking away from a burning bin.
People familiar with the discussions said some marketers felt pressured to buy ads, with one advertiser telling the FT they were told to spend a specific amount or face a lawsuit.
In late 2024, X dropped Unilever from the case after it restarted advertising on the platform.
Those same people said Musk’s sometimes close relationship with Donald Trump made advertisers more nervous about refusing demands.
