The joint complaint, filed in the Northern District of Texas, accuses WFA, Unilever, Mars, CVS Health and Ørsted A/S of conspiring to harm the advertising revenue streams of X and Rumble as part of their "brand safety standards."
Under the umbrella of the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM), the cohort orchestrated a boycott, the suit claims, that significantly impacted the revenue streams of X after it acquired Twitter. The purpose of the boycott was to try to steer the online conversation in promotion of the cohort's shared economic goals.
"The boycott and its effects continue to this day," the complaint reads.
According to the suit, the defendants are in breach of the Sherman Act, which governs the unlawful restraint of trade.
"In a competitive market, each social media platform would set its brand safety standards ... but collective action among competing advertisers to dictate brand safety standards shortcuts the competitive process," the complaint further reads.
(Related: According to Rumble CEO Chris Pavlovski, the activist group Media Matters is trying to harm the video platform by misleading advertisers and the public.)
Internal GARM communications celebrated economic damage caused to X
Part of the suit includes claims about internal communications at GARM that allegedly celebrated the economic damage caused to X, the advertising revenue streams of which fell "80% below revenue forecasts" due to the boycott.
The House Judiciary Committee is conducting an investigation into the matter as well. So far, it found that the activity of both the WFA and GARM "threatens fundamental American freedoms." It could also be "likely illegal under the antitrust laws."
Members of Congress claim that GARM's actions could be violative of antitrust laws aimed at protecting Americans and their freedoms.
X wants compensatory damages as well as injunctive relief, which would bar advertisers and corporations from ever again boycotting the social media platform. Rumble wants in on the action as well with plans to file a comprehensive antitrust lawsuit against key players in the advertising industry.
Rumble says GARM has orchestrated multiple boycotts across numerous tech platforms, which unfairly cut these platforms off from receiving vital advertising revenue streams.
"The brand safety standards set by advertisers and their ad agencies should succeed or fail in the marketplace on their own merits and not through the coercive exercise of market power," Rumble's complaint states.
"All of this illegal conduct is done at the expense of platforms, content creators and their users, as well as the agencies' own advertiser clients who pay more for ads as a result of their collusion."
Beyond all this, Rumble says advertising collusion is harming not just digital platforms like itself and X but also content creators who are struggling to bring in revenue for their brands and products. As such, the cost of advertising is also on the rise, the company claims.
The digital advertising ecosystem as a whole is being negatively impacted by what the WFA and GARM are doing, the complaint further alleges. Like X, Rumble wants financial redress as well as a judicial affirmation that the advertising collusion allegedly taking place is illegal.
In the end, both X and Rumble also want a permanent injunction to halt these collusive practices. This, they claim, will lead to fairness in digital advertising for all.
The latest news about all things tech can be found at BigTech.news.
Sources for this article include:
Please contact us for more information.
