Latest news with #GARM
Hans India
24-06-2025
- Business
- Hans India
FTC Greenlights $13.5B Ad Merger with Clause Benefiting Elon Musk's X
In a move that could reshape the digital advertising landscape, the Federal Trade Commission has given conditional approval to a $13.5 billion merger between Omnicom and Interpublic Group — the nation's third- and fourth-largest media buying firms — with a unique provision aimed at curbing what it sees as ideological bias in ad placements. The FTC's proposed consent order, released Monday, bars the merged company from directing or restricting advertising spending based on a platform's political or ideological leanings. This decision comes as a direct response to concerns voiced by congressional Republicans and tech magnate Elon Musk, whose platform X (formerly Twitter) has faced a mass advertiser exodus due to controversial content. The order stipulates that Omnicom cannot refuse to work with advertisers based on political perspectives or steer clients' ads away from certain platforms for the same reason — unless explicitly requested by the advertiser. This means platforms like X, which saw advertisers flee in 2023 after ads appeared alongside pro-Nazi content, would be protected from automatic exclusion. 'This decree goes to great lengths to avoid interfering with the free, regular course of business between marketing firms and their customers,' said FTC Republican Chair Andrew Ferguson. 'Omnicom-IPG may choose with whom it does business and follow any lawful instruction from its customers as to where and how to advertise. No one will be forced to have their brand or their ads appear in venues and among content they do not wish.' The consent order includes language prohibiting Omnicom from maintaining policies that "decline to deal with Advertisers based on political or ideological viewpoints" or "direct Advertisers' advertising spend based on the Media Publisher's political or ideological viewpoints." The merger drew additional scrutiny due to its potential to reduce competition in the media buying industry. The FTC's complaint warns that with fewer major players, the risk of coordination and mutual reinforcement among remaining firms could increase — potentially echoing the role of the now-defunct Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM), which helped advertisers avoid 'non-brand-safe' content before dissolving under legal and financial pressure. GARM's work had previously drawn ire from Musk, who labeled advertiser pullback from X an 'illegal boycott.' The FTC is currently investigating Media Matters, a media watchdog group Musk blames for encouraging brands to leave his platform. Media Matters filed a countersuit earlier Monday. Despite constitutional protections for boycotts, the FTC argues this new rule does not interfere with advertisers' First Amendment rights. The consent decree applies solely to Omnicom's own internal policies, not those of its clients. Philippe Krakowsky, CEO of Interpublic, called the move a 'notable step forward' for the merger, while Omnicom CEO John Wren expressed confidence that the deal would close in the second half of 2025. The proposal was approved by Chair Ferguson and Commissioner Melissa Holyoak. Commissioner Mark Meador recused himself. The FTC is currently operating under a Republican majority, after President Donald Trump dismissed the two Democratic commissioners and has yet to appoint replacements.
Yahoo
12-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
The FTC Risks Chilling Speech With Its Advertising Boycott Investigation
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) opened an investigation into Media Matters for America, a progressive nonprofit dedicated to "monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media," for its role in an advertising boycott of X in May. On Monday, the FTC expanded the investigation to major advertisers, including Omnicron Group and the Interpublic Group, both of which are founding members of the World Federation of Advertisers (WFA). The FTC's investigation follows not only Elon Musk's intimate involvement with the Trump administration but also lawsuits filed by X Corp. against Media Matters and the WFA. In November 2023, X Corp. filed a lawsuit against Media Matters in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas accusing the nonprofit of making false and malicious statements disparaging the quality of X, which led to the subsequent loss of advertising contracts. In its complaint, X Corp. accuses Media Matters of publicly smearing the company by "knowingly and maliciously manufactur[ing] side-by-side images [of] advertisers' posts…beside Neo-Nazi and white-nationalist fringe content." X Corp. cites "99% of [its] measured ad placement in 2023 [appearing] adjacent to content scoring above the Global Alliance for Responsible Media's [GARM] brand safety floor" as contradicting Media Matter's portrayal of the platform. X Corp. filed an antitrust lawsuit against GARM's parent organization, the WFA, in August 2024. After Musk acquired Twitter (now X) in November 2022, members contacted GARM for advice on whether to continue advertising on the platform. At this time, the suit alleges, GARM "conveyed to its members its concerns about Twitter's compliance with GARM's standards"—concerns exacerbated by critical coverage from progressive nonprofits like Media Matters—prompting a boycott that caused revenues to dip 80 percent below forecasts. X Corp. alleges that WFA members violated the Sherman Antitrust Act's prohibition of conspiracies in restraint of trade by "withholding purchases of digital advertising from Twitter." Supreme Court precedent strongly suggests this allegation is meritless. Vikram David Amar and Ashutosh Bhagwat, both professors at the University of California, Davis School of Law, cite NAACP v. Claiborne (1982) as evidence that the First Amendment applies to politically motivated boycotts. Amar and Bhagwat explain that, in Claiborne, "the Court insulated the boycotters from liability under state laws seeking to protect fair economic competition and held that 'the nonviolent elements of [the boycotters'] activities [were] entitled to the protection of the First Amendment.'" Amar and Bhagwat also invoke 303 Creative v. Elenis (2023), where the Court ruled that "a seller of inherently expressive services…can't be compelled [by a consumer] to provide speech." It stands to reason that consumers (like advertisers) may not be forced to buy expressive services they disagree with. Forcing companies to pay for speech with which they disagree is unconstitutional. The FTC's advertising boycott investigation is a waste of the commission's time and taxpayers' money because, even if advocacy groups and advertisers colluded to boycott X, the First Amendment forecloses antitrust prosecution given the expressive nature of the X platform and its advertising service. The post The FTC Risks Chilling Speech With Its Advertising Boycott Investigation appeared first on
Axios
23-05-2025
- Business
- Axios
FTC investigating liberal watchdog group Media Matters
The Federal Trade Commission is investigating the liberal group Media Matters over claims that it and other media advocacy groups coordinated advertising boycotts of Elon Musk's X, Media Matters president Angelo Carusone confirmed in a statement Thursday. Why it matters: Musk and conservatives have been targeting advertising groups for months as part of a broader effort to determine whether the ad market writ large is biased against them. X sued Media Matters for defamation in 2023 for a report it publicly released that showed ads on X running next to pro-Nazi content. X claimed the report contributed to an advertiser exodus. Last year, X filed a federal antitrust lawsuit against the World Federation of Advertisers, a major advertising trade group, and its industry coalition called the Global Alliance for Responsible Media. The lawsuit proved effective as WFA discontinued GARM a few months later. What they're saying:"The Trump administration has been defined by naming right-wing media figures to key posts and abusing the power of the federal government to bully political opponents and silence critics," said Carusone. "It's clear that's exactly what's happening here, given Media Matters' history of holding those same figures to account. These threats won't work; we remain steadfast to our mission." The FTC did not respond to a request for comment. Zoom out: The investigation, first reported by Reuters, signals an escalation of tensions between the advertising community and conservatives. Last year, The Daily Wire, a conservative media company, sent letters to major corporations asking them to "reject" GARM, arguing it colluded with agencies, brands and tech platforms "to demonetize conservative media outlets." The Daily Wire testified in a hearing about the matter last summer, after conservatives leading the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing about complaints GARM was colluding with ad-buying giant GroupM to discourage clients from buying ads in the Daily Wire because of its conservative politics. What to watch: X Corp. has a mixed record when it comes to lawsuits against research and advocacy groups.
Miami Herald
19-05-2025
- Business
- Miami Herald
Elon Musk hit with scathing words from former X clients
With all the problems Tesla is facing, it can be easy to forget that Elon Musk is fighting other battles. He's currently in the throes of a vicious lawsuit involving one of his other companies. When Musk finalized his acquisition of Twitter, now called X, in October 2022, it sparked a backlash that extended beyond the platform's users. Many people deleted their accounts in protest of Musk's beliefs on certain topics, but some companies also took a stand against him. Don't miss the move: Subscribe to TheStreet's free daily newsletter In the months that followed his takeover, a large number of companies halted advertising on X amid reports of offensive content and declining user activity. This included prominent companies such as Lego, Shell, and Nestlé, to name just a few. Musk responded with a lawsuit against these former clients, alleging that they had illegally boycotted his platform. However, the defendants have hit back with some strong words. Even before Musk assumed control of what would become X, some people raised concerns about what it would mean for the platform. For some, it meant a likely mass exodus of users, as many people have expressed concern that Musk would create a hostile environment, despite his claims to support free speech. Related: Elon Musk gets devastating news as the 'anti-Tesla' catches on It didn't take long for advertising clients to start walking away, though, nor for Musk to feel the impact. One year later, the platform's advertising revenue had reportedly plunged by roughly $1.5 billion, described by a source as a "significant slump from prior years." From Musk's perspective, the decision to stop advertising on X seemed to be a deliberate conspiracy orchestrated by a group of companies with illicit intentions. As he put it, their actions resulted in X ending up "a less effective competitor to other social media platforms in the sale of digital advertising and in competing for user engagement on its platform." In July 2024, Musk posted to X that his company would be filing a lawsuit against the companies that had boycotted advertising on his platform, saying he hoped some states would consider prosecuting them criminally. Musk's case alleges that these companies had joined an initiative titled Global Alliance of Responsible Media (GARM), which could be seen as conspiring to "collectively withhold billions of dollars in advertising." Created in 2019 to promote digital safety as part of the World Federation of Advertisers (WFA), GARM has not been active since August 2024. The companies on the other end of Musk's lawsuit recently filed a joint motion to have the case dismissed quickly. They described his legal action against them as "an attempt to use the courthouse to win back the business X lost in the free market when it disrupted its own business and alienated many of its customers." More Elon Musk News: Elon Musk's robotaxi ambitions hit with major roadblockPalantir leader has shocking take on Elon Musk and DOGEBill Gates makes a controversial accusation about Elon Musk In this blunt statement, the companies allege that Musk is responsible for the business his company lost and that their decisions to stop advertising on his platform are perfectly justified in a free market economy. In the most recent filing, these companies asserted that the decision to stop advertising on X is protected by their First Amendment rights. It notes that while antitrust law does protect competition within a market, it doesn't protect companies like X from competition, despite what Musk seems intent on claiming. Related: Elon Musk reveals plans to do exactly what he's been warned against Business Insider provides further context on the challenge to Musk's lawsuit that these brands have issued, stating: "In Wednesday's filing, the WFA and the group of brands rejected the accusations of a conspiracy and said that advertisers - including non-GARM members - made their own individual decisions about pulling ad spend from X. It noted that X's own lawsuit said just 18 of GARM's more than 100 members stopped advertising on the platform." It remains uncertain whether the case will be dismissed or Musk's lawsuit against these companies will proceed. However, given the precedent set by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which protects individual liberties, it seems unlikely that a judge will rule in Musk's favor. Related: Veteran fund manager unveils eye-popping S&P 500 forecast The Arena Media Brands, LLC THESTREET is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc.
Yahoo
16-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Furious Former Twitter Advertisers Tell Elon Musk They've Had Enough of His Tantrums
Elon Musk's social media company X-formerly-Twitter sued several major advertising brands last year, accusing them of conspiring to "collectively withhold billions of dollars in advertising." It's an easily debunked claim that flatly ignores the extremely hostile environment the mercurial CEO has created on the platform, with hate speech and disinformation running rampant. Now, advertisers singled out by Musk are ready to hit back and are asking a judge to dismiss Musk's lawsuit. As Business Insider reports, the companies accused the richest man in the world in a joint motion of trying to "win back the business X lost in the free market when it disrupted its own business and alienated many of its customers." Advertisers started running for the hills after Musk took over the platform in late 2022, bringing with him a groundswell of hate speech, misinformation, and racist rhetoric. The exodus, which has continued for years, left a major hole in the company's financials that were already in freefall following Musk's acquisition. Instead of acknowledging the sheer amount of damage he has done, Musk is accusing advertisers of colluding against him in the lawsuit, which he filed in August of last year. The prolonged legal fight turned ugly when the Global Alliance of Responsible Media (GARM), a World Federation of Advertisers (WFA) initiative, dissolved after Musk filed the complaint. The initiative was set up in 2019 to protect advertisers from exactly the kind of hurtful content that has flourished on X-formerly-Twitter, including child sex-abuse material, and displays of violence. But now, GARM members and non-GARM members alike have joined forces to reject Musk's accusations of a conspiracy, pointing out that they each had individually determined X was far too toxic to advertise on. The group also refuted the findings of a Republican-led investigation by the House Judiciary Committee that claimed its members colluded against the conservative-leaning media. In their latest finding, the WFA pointed out that advertisers' decision to stay clear of Musk's toxic platform fell under their First Amendment rights. "Antitrust law protects competition," the filing reads. "It does not protect X from competition." More on Twitter: Grok AI Claims Elon Musk Told It to Go on Lunatic Rants About "White Genocide" Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
