Elon Musk’s X platform is appealing to try and revive a lawsuit against advertisers, which it accuses of illegally boycotting the social media site.
X (formerly Twitter), is attempting to revive a previously dismissed lawsuit against advertisers, in which it accuses them of “illegally boycotting” the platform.
The social media site agreed to settle the case against the World Federation of Advertisers last week, but Musk is now looking to continue its suit against the other defendants, including Shell, Lego, Nestle, Mars, among others.
In the case filing, X argued this case “involves an unusually brazen group boycott”.
“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.”
The platform suffered a significant drop in ad revenue after it was bought by tech mogul Elon Musk. Revenue dropped for X in the UK by 60% in 2024 compared to the previous year, as advertisers became concerned about brand safety following Musk’s declaration that he was a “free speech absolutionist,” and the platform would reduce content moderation.
The filing argued the boycott “injured X and competition in that market, allowing other social media platforms to charge rates above truly competitive pricing”.
“Especially in light of the power defendants wield within the market, their agreement to boycott X cannot be characterised as anything other than an unreasonable restraint on trade.”
Previously, a judge dismissed Musk’s lawsuit, asserting the only harm suffered by X was it lost customers to competitors, confirming that “although a group boycott is alleged, there is no antitrust violation here”.
X asked the 5th Circuit to reverse this judgement, arguing that advertisers colluded to boycott the platform, which eliminated “independent decision-making that would otherwise force each firm to weigh the competitive benefits of continuing to advertise on the platform,” and therefore suppressed “competitive rivalries and insulating the boycott from market forces”.
This, the social media site said, “distorts competition in multiple markets in clear contravention of the antitrust laws”.
