Elon Musk vs. Advertisers

Elon Musk’s relationship with advertisers last year could best be described as “hostile,” but now the X CEO has revealed a new level of conflict: He wants to hold them accountable for not paying him, which has led to a decline in sales revenue from the platform, which has been repeatedly caught placing ads next to neo-Nazi, anti-Semitic, and discriminatory posts that brands strongly dislike.

After Musk bought Twitter, many advertisers left the site. The new president of the company could not find anything else to do except send them three letters publicly from the stage of the hall where some of the former partners were present. Elon, who lost millions of dollars in profits, continued to claim that he “did not care” and that this would not affect the social network in any way, but also made contrary statements that the company could go bankrupt. In the meantime, new CEO Linda Jaccarino is doing her best to win back advertisers or find new ones.

A new report from the House Judiciary Committee gives Elon Musk a new weapon he believes will help him in his legal fight against illegal brands. Yes, this strange new tactic has some legal backing, thanks to a decision by the House Judiciary Committee. The decision concerns the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM), an effort by the World Federation of Advertisers and the World Economic Forum to reduce “harmful content on digital media platforms.”

No one wants their brand to appear next to hate speech on social media, so GARM tries to reduce the likelihood of that happening. How do they do it? For example, “suspending payment for ads until the platforms do literally anything about hate speech and misinformation.” But the Judiciary Committee didn’t like that approach because “ “I’m trying to control communication on the Internet”.

The report cited the example of GARM’s response to Spotify hosting Joe Rogan’s podcast on its platform, despite his controversial views on COVID-19 vaccines. The group apparently took the discussion to Spotify as GARM sought to minimize misinformation. The committee described the move as “an attempt to pressure Spotify to censor Joe Rogan for his views.”

But GARM aims to prevent harmful content from being imposed on a vulnerable audience, so of course it is unlikely to agree with the Committee’s decision. GARM can only influence the situation very indirectly by encouraging (but not forcing) member companies like GM, Mastercard, and Nike to forego advertising spending where their corporate policies permit hate speech. But one way or another, that influence is still censorship in the eyes of the House of Representatives, and that’s all. This gave Musk a legal basis for a future lawsuit.

Musk announced his intention to file a lawsuit via Twitter, of course, without explaining exactly what he meant.

After reviewing the evidence released by Congress today, X has no choice but to file charges against the perpetrators of the ad boycott and their accomplices. We hope some states consider criminal prosecution.
– Elon Musk wrote.

It’s unclear what results he’s hoping for and how he’ll achieve them, but suing someone for not wanting to spend money on a particular platform can be a hopeless endeavor.