X expands lawsuit over advertiser ‘boycott’ to include Lego, Nestlé, Pinterest, and others | TechCrunch
X expands lawsuit over advertiser ‘boycott’ to include Lego, Nestlé, Pinterest, and others | TechCrunch
X is now suing more advertisers in an antitrust lawsuit focusing on what the company’s CEO Linda Yaccarino has claimed is a “systematic illegal boycott.”
How long until Tesla sues me for buying a Toyota?
Oh yes Nestle, the infamously lefty liberals.
What an ugly fuck Elon is. Ewwww
Last year he told everybody to go fuck themselves. Now he's crying. If there is somebody who needs to be deported, is it his narcistic, selfish, apartheid's ass.
What about capital markets and the freedom to choose where to spend your money? Elmo can go get pegged by Trump.
They can peg eachother. "Ass to ass!"
wtf is musk even expecting to gain here
I mean he's being bukaked with publicity.... So if that's his thing?
What I'd like to know, assuming there is still logic and sanity in this world (please it's all I have don't argue) how would a company from this list have avoided this in the first place? Like once you start advertising with a partner like X then you may never stop? Seriously I'm not sure. So maybe just never risk doing business with anyone because you'll be sued into staying in business with them forever? I'm certain it's right in their contracts how and when they can leave, is that in dispute?
i wounder if he will actually get a court to order that every person in the world owes him money.
cause that seems to be what he is working towards.
No, the case is that advertisers used an Ad Advisory Group called GARM, that monitored advertising platforms on their quality, like being family friendly and keeping things within the law. When they advised their customers that they could no longer vouch for X, many advertisers followed their guidance.
Obviously they are in their right to do so, and there was absolutely nothing wrong with the procedures that were followed, like it was NOT cartel or any other kind of shenanigans by the users of that service.
But Musk being a paranoid malignant narcissistic crybaby, saw it as a conspiracy directed against him personally. And the guy has more money than sense, so he is making a huge issue out of it.
Luckily USA is a nation of law, so he won't get anywhere with that, just like he wouldn't get away with calling people pedophiles for no other reason than to offend them. Thank god USA isn't corrupt as hell, so we can trust the courts to do the right thing. /s
On the other hand we also have EU warning against advertising on X:
https://www.euronews.com/next/2023/11/17/eu-commission-advises-services-to-stop-advertising-on-elon-musks-xEU warning against advertising on X
… and Musk supporting anti-EU parties.
If he does, they will lose ALL advertising
"I ruined my business by supporting Nazis and it's all your fault!"
I love this song
tHe mArKeT WiLl ReGuLaTe ItSeLf!
This donkey about to get taught a lesson by nestle. He probably thinks he's hot shit now but he poked the devil.
I'm surprised they haven't killed his children already.
They needn't to do so. His children are dead to him.
Nazi vs Nestle. Always win for us.
let them fight.jpg
YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO OTHER COMPANIES’ MONEY
Wuaahh wuaahh wuaahh.
Musk will cry about this, about how he was so unfairly treated, from his cell in the insane asylum that I expect him to be in in about 10 years the way he has been getting worse for the past 10 years.
Can someone explain to me how you can sue over a business choosing to not spend their advertising dollars on a particular service? I mean Elon specifically told his customers to “fuck off” and now he’s suing them?!? I just don’t understand these petulant little man children being so litigious when they get their feefees hurt.
Here's the claim from the article:
The complaint alleges that the WFA “organized an advertiser boycott of Twitter through GARM, with the goal of coercing Twitter to comply with the GARM Brand Safety Standards to the satisfaction of GARM.” And it claims that these efforts succeeded in harming Twitter/X, with “at least” 18 GARM-affiliated advertisers stopping their purchase of ads on Twitter between November and December 2022, and other advertisers “substantially” reducing their spending.
Easy, you pack courts with shills, you eliminate government oversight, and then you do whatever you want.
Sure thing! I found an article that explains it better than I could:
Oh man. I wish OP would have posted this first.
The object of the lawsuit is to get these deep pocketed corporations to settle for millions. If the companies aren’t able to get the suits dismissed, they will settle. They don’t want to get on the wrong side of the current administration and it’s less costly than a years long legal battle.
It's also a strong signal to future boycotters.
You can sue for anything.
Instead of someone explaining, you could always read the article linked and see for yourself.
I did read the article.
For example how does this:
In fact, the lawsuit claims that ad prices on X “remain well below those charged by X’s closest competitors in the social media advertising market,” so “by refraining from purchasing advertising from X, boycotting advertisers are forgoing a valuable opportunity to purchase low-priced advertising inventory on a platform with brand safety that meets or exceeds industry standards.”
force someone or some company to spend their advertising dollars there. If a company spending ad money doesn’t like what the ad service represents, in this case Elon is a douchebag and we’ll just ignore the fact that he gave a Nazi salute at the inauguration, than they aren’t required to use them as a service, illegal boycott or not, which I don’t even believe is a thing.
Here’s a hyperbolic argument. Let’s just say for example we have two grocery stores. One promotes pedophilia and the other does not. The pedo grocery store has prices that are let’s say half of what the other grocery store is, because I don’t know fucking kids makes you feel generous. A bunch of people get together and decide they don’t wanna shop at NAMBLAmart. Is NAMBLAmart allow to sue me because I didn’t shop there?
Because unless I’m missing something, that’s pretty much the argument.
Suing companies for not advertising on a platform For Nazis, By Nazis™. 🤡
Hey Elmo, you told the advertisers to “go fuck yourself” in no uncertain terms, even repeating yourself for dramatic effect.
Hey I’ve got an idea Elmo. Go fuck yourself.
He’s levying tithes.
How dare your company not advertise on my company cause I’m a racist wanna be nazi twat.
Can you please tag this elon, so that our spam filters work?
It's not practical to censor "x"
What about censoring " x ". That might help filter more posts.
Yeah I know. It’s how I got (well forced) to see this story as well. I mean this douchebag is so rage inducing how could you NOT filter him.
I suppose after he gets done there he will come after people like me who have blocked every musk related business from my network.
Anyone getting sued by him should just demand a jury trial. No way you'll get enough Americans to side with musk on anything.
You know you've fucked up when even Nestlé doesn't want to work with you...
Obligatory Fuck Nesté
When people go we may use child slaves in our supply chain, steal and ruin water supplies, and bribe medical professionals to get discourage breastfeeding, but you're too fucked up for us to work with then you know you've fucked up.
Are boycotts illegal? In this case I doubt there was an organized attempt, just some companies making individual business decisions. But even if Twitter can prove there was a boycott, is there a law against that?
Boycotts are absolutely legal, you are completely entitled to decide who you don't want to do business with. However, illegality is no longer required for the justice system to be weaponized against you, and President Musk just wants to make an example to others who might not want to do business with an actual Nazi.
Are boycotts illegal?
It depends on the boycott.
Surely it's up to the advertisers to choose where who they pay money to use?
The law doesn't matter. With Musk's position in the government this will basically end up as extortion: Settle or I'll make things difficult for you.
a certain amount of business collusion can be considered a cartel (other kind) and essentially monopolistic… but that’s usually price fixing… i don’t see how they could be compelled to advertise on a nazi platform.
also, i respect these companies much more than any company that would, and consider this lawsuit great advertising
but then again, the right trump appointed federal judge makes meaning pointless in law…
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=2069436850145993
50 States, 50 Protests, 1day
Feb 5 @ your downtown.
The irony of using one fascist billionaires platform to organize against another fascist billionaire and his platform, but also the government.
Can you screenshot that or something. I can't see it without the Facebook account I refuse to have.
I can't see it either. I'm not on Facebook. Someone found more details by googling it.
Organizing on Facebook? Wtaf.
Nothing says you believe in free market competition more, than suing a another private business, trying to force them to give you money
"Free market" was nothing but a propaganda term...
That has always been the essence of the "Free Market", for thee but not for me.
In a sane world, this lawsuit would be laughed out of court.
It's harder to laugh it out of court when the plaintiff is in the government himself.
There's gotta be serious repercussions for this insane narcissist-autocratic behaviour. USA you're not just embarrassing, but a liability.
Maybe asking advertisers to 'go fuck yourselves' isn't such a bright idea, fuckwit.
You just know that's going to be exhibit 1 for the defense.
Fucking fascist Nazi man baby doesn't like when advertisers do what he tells them, and then continues to do so when he realizes that was a bad idea.
Reminds me of the guy who was accused by his gf of impregnating her, then refusing to support the child. Went through everything: the lawyers, friends and family who questioned his manhood and unwilling ess to take responsibility for the child, harassment, threats from her friends, etc. finally ended up in court in front of a judge, where he calmly produced a letter from a doctor that had performed a vasectomy on him well before the child could possibly have been conceived, took the win and walked out.
I would pay to watch this rich spoilt man child have to eat his literal words. I'm sure it's screenshotted all over the internet, but his ego won't let him see the truth.
when advertisers do what he tells them
They have actually ... themselves?
;-)
You can also have friends if you just pay mercenaries to kidnap them from the street at gunpoint. Many many great friends at any time.
Hey, when you're rich you can grab them by the balls.
*corpussy
Throwing a temper tantrum because no-one wants to play with you. What a child!
Can Elon and Yaccarino just die already
All the defense has to do is play the clip of him openly telling advertisers not to advertise and he'll get laughed out of court.
In an actual court? In Trumps america?
Most politicians are bought for less than a million. The guy has hundreds of billions. I imagine he can buy a few judges along the way.
Possibly, but none of those bought judges matter unless it ends up in their specific court. That's why they've been trying to install as many of their own as possible.
I’m honestly blown away that Nestle stopped or reduced advertising. It seems like twitter is exactly the home for such a terrible company.
Nestle has an extremely safe, risk-averse marketing strategy. In part due to their various scandals, they try really hard to be family friendly and boring.
That said, they are not worse than other food and beverage conglomerates.
-
child labor: mars & others were also implicated. These companies were most likely unaware of the child labor being used to harvest cocoa. The way it works is there are wholesalers in Africa who buy cocoa from processing facilities who buy fresh cocoa pods from local farms. These wholesalers advertised themselves as being child-labore-free. The farms they buy from were using child labor. This is a problem with capitalism exploiting people in the global south, causing perverse incentives, and with companies having limited insight into the full depth of their supply chains.
-
water is not a human right: The nestle water exec said the quiet part out loud. But, no beverage company believes water is a human right - they just aren't stupid enough to say that on camera. If they did think it was a human right, they'd be working to ensure universal access to clean water rather than bottling it and shipping it around the world while limiting water access at their extraction points and polluting the water near their factories. Look at what coca cola is doing in mexico - rampant water pollution such that in factory towns. Coke is the only safe drink for folks because the water is contaminated. Nestle is bad, but no worse than coca cola.
-
infant formula scandal: this occurred in the 1970s and was obviously awful. Every major multinational food and beverage conglomerate has stories like this if you look hard enough - this just happens to be a fucked up series of events that got some major media play.
People online scapegoat Nestle, but continue to buy electronics and clothing made with child labor, tree nuts/soda/and other products known to be harmful to watersheds, and many other products from companies which harm people in the global south. This isn't meant to defend nestle, but to remind everyone that there is no ethical consumption under capitalism. Nestle is not anywhere close to an uniquely evil company. Not even in its own industry.
Thank you for putting it into perspective a little bit. I still won't buy Nestlé stuff but at least now I'll feel guilty buying anything else lol
Water is a human right. Quoth Article 11, (1) ICESCR:
The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions. The States Parties will take appropriate steps to ensure the realization of this right, recognizing to this effect the essential importance of international co-operation based on free consent.
"food" here can be safely assumed to include "water". "Everyone" means "also people who can't afford shoelaces". There's exactly one country in the world which didn't ratify the ICESCR and it's the US.
Regarding "uniquely evil": Yeah I'm definitely boycotting Chiquita (United Fruit) and Bacardi harder, both are still, effectively, whining about having their slave plantations expropriated. Both aren't exactly hard to do their bananas are more expensive than no-brand organic ones over here, and Bacardi, well there’s plenty of good rum, Bacardi ain't one of them. If you ever make a Cuba Libre with Bacardi I shall explode into tirades.
-
The company might be terrible, but most of their buyers are normal people who either don't know what brands belong to them, or don't care enough to carefully investigate everything they buy. And those normal people are the ones the ads need to reach. If they leave twitter, what's the point of advertising there?
Yea, I think it makes sense for them to stop if they are getting a return on their investment.
The lesson here is to never start advertising on that platform. You’re less likely to be sued by Musk if you never start advertising in the first place. Advertising on his platform is an unnecessary risk for your business:
Preach. Never do business with a professional troll.
He must think it's like the old dealership laws. Once you enter into an agreement, you can't exit.
Advertise once, advertise forever!
I didn't know Citizens United gave companies forced speech.
The speech is free. Xitter could advertise for these companies for free. It's the money that's being forced...
Oh wait I forgot money is speech. It's so hard to keep up with the state's counter-reality.
No better way to get people who used to voluntarily give you money to give you more money than threatening them.
How is this even a thing? Is a bank run considered collusion? If the platform no longer offers the audience I want to reach then I should be able to stop advertising on it. It just happens that the audience of may companies at once left the company. Who is even entertaining this lawsuit?
Link without the trackers attached to it: https://techcrunch.com/2025/02/01/x-expands-lawsuit-over-advertiser-boycott-to-include-lego-nestle-pinterest-and-others/
I'm torn about disliking this douchebag and liking that Nestlé is getting sued...
On the scale of who is fucking up the world more, I’d have to award the trophy to Leon. Certainly fuck Nestle, but won’t someone please rid us of this meddlesome billionaire?
Musk knows no bottom, cause he is the bottom.
Tbf every body needs an asshole. Except the us, which seems to have two.
He should sue everyone that left X!!