X wants to keep suing advertisers, asks 5th Circuit to overrule district judge
Elon Musk's X is asking the US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit to revive its antitrust lawsuit against a group of major advertisers, after a district judge dismissed the case in March. The company argues that advertisers colluded in an illegal boycott that damaged X's revenue and allowed rival platforms to charge above-competitive rates, calling it "an unusually brazen group boycott" that has drawn scrutiny from regulators and Congress.
US District Judge Jane Boyle threw out the original case, ruling that advertisers simply chose competing platforms over X, which does not amount to an antitrust violation. Although X recently settled with the World Federation of Advertisers, the trade body linked to the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM) brand-safety initiative, it is still pursuing other defendants including Mars, CVS Health, Nestlé, Abbott Laboratories, Colgate-Palmolive, Lego, Pinterest, Tyson Foods, Shell and Ørsted. The case stems from a sharp fall in advertising revenue at X (formerly Twitter) following Musk's 2022 takeover and subsequent changes to content moderation, with legal experts previously describing X's underlying case as weak.
In short
- X appeals to revive its advertiser boycott lawsuit at the 5th Circuit.
- District judge had dismissed the case, finding no antitrust violation.
- X settled with one defendant but pursues Mars, CVS, Nestlé and others.
Steelman: both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
X argues that major advertisers coordinated a group boycott that violates antitrust law by unlawfully excluding a competitor from the market. Such collective action to avoid a platform, if proven, represents precisely the anticompetitive conduct antitrust law exists to prevent, particularly when it allows rivals to maintain supracompetitive pricing by removing a lower-cost alternative from competition.
The case against
Advertisers contend they simply exercised legitimate business judgment in allocating spending to platforms deemed suitable for their brands. Neither antitrust law nor contract law obligates companies to advertise anywhere; selecting competing platforms based on brand safety and audience considerations represents ordinary competitive decision-making, not unlawful conduct. X's own content moderation changes, rather than coordinated boycott, naturally prompted independent advertiser decisions.
Explained simply
X, formerly Twitter, relies heavily on advertising to earn money. After Elon Musk bought the platform in 2022 and changed its approach to content moderation, its advertising revenue fell sharply.
The dispute centres on whether advertisers acted independently when they spent less on X or collectively agreed to withhold adverts. X says the companies coordinated through industry groups; the advertisers named in the case include Mars, Nestlé, Lego and Shell.
US antitrust law bars certain agreements that restrict competition, but a company choosing to advertise elsewhere is not by itself necessarily illegal. The case matters because its outcome could affect how businesses and industry groups coordinate decisions about where adverts appear.