In a dramatic legal escalation, X Corp., the social media platform previously known as Twitter, has added Amazon-owned Twitch to its lawsuit alleging a coordinated advertising boycott. Filed in August 2024, the lawsuit also targets major corporations such as CVS, Unilever, and Mars, accusing them of conspiring through the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM) to harm X’s business.
The Allegations Against GARM
X Corp. alleges that GARM, a coalition under the World Federation of Advertisers (WFA), orchestrated a campaign to undermine its ad revenue following controversial policy changes under Elon Musk’s leadership. These changes, including the relaxation of content moderation rules, allegedly led to concerns among advertisers about brand safety, with ads reportedly appearing next to harmful content.
X claims these concerns were a pretext for a broader conspiracy aimed at punishing the platform for Musk’s decisions. The lawsuit argues that the advertisers’ actions, facilitated by GARM, were not isolated but part of a collective effort to stifle competition and choke off X’s revenue streams.
Twitch’s Role in the Alleged Boycott
Twitch stopped advertising on X in late 2022, citing concerns over brand safety, according to Business Insider. X Corp.’s latest legal filing claims this move was part of a coordinated effort by GARM members to damage the platform’s financial standing. The disbanding of GARM shortly after X’s original lawsuit has added a layer of intrigue, with X Corp. questioning whether this dissolution was an attempt to avoid scrutiny.
SEE ALSO: Elon Musk Wins Lawsuit Over Ex-Twitter Staffers $500 Million Severance Pay
The Broader Context: Declining Ad Revenue
X’s legal challenges come amidst significant turbulence for the platform. Since Musk’s acquisition, advertisers have scaled back due to fears over content moderation. In a related lawsuit, X has accused Media Matters for America of publishing misleading reports that further discouraged advertisers. Critics argue these lawsuits are diversionary tactics, intended to shift attention from X’s ongoing struggles with user trust, declining ad revenue, and an evolving content ecosystem.
Implications for Brand Safety and Antitrust Precedents
The case highlights a critical tension between brand safety and the principles of free speech. Advertisers, through alliances like GARM, argue that platforms must maintain environments that protect their brands from association with inappropriate or harmful content. Platforms like X, however, contend that such alliances can cross into anti-competitive behavior, especially if they result in coordinated actions that harm business viability.
Should X succeed in its legal fight, it could set a significant precedent, reshaping the way digital platforms and advertisers navigate brand safety guidelines, antitrust laws, and content moderation in an era of increasing polarization.
The Stakes for X Corp., Twitch, and the Industry
For X Corp., this case is about more than financial recovery—it’s about defending its autonomy and future as a global social media platform. Twitch, as the latest target in this battle, represents the intersection of competing interests between content creators, advertisers, and platforms. As the legal battle unfolds, the resilience of industry coalitions like GARM will also be put to the test.
The outcomes of this high-profile case could redefine the boundaries of corporate alliances, setting new norms for accountability and competition in digital advertising. For now, X’s lawsuit against Twitch and other advertisers remains a focal point in the ongoing debate over the future of online platforms.
