A federal judge has officially thrown out a high-stakes lawsuit filed by Elon Musk's X Corp, which accused a coalition of major brands of orchestrating an illegal boycott to financially starve the social media platform.
The 2024 lawsuit took aim at corporate heavyweights including Unilever, Mars, Orsted, and the World Federation of Advertisers (WFA). X Corp alleged that these entities engaged in a coordinated conspiracy that cost the platform billions of dollars in lost advertising revenue.
However, US District Judge Jane Boyle dismissed the case on Thursday, ruling that the social media giant failed to demonstrate any actionable harm under federal antitrust legislation.
The legal battle has its roots in Musk's tumultuous acquisition of the platform—formerly known as Twitter—in 2022. Following his takeover, Musk enacted sweeping policy shifts, rolling back content moderation rules and restoring previously banned, controversial accounts. Consequently, X saw its advertising revenue plummet by more than 50% within a year as cautious brands paused or significantly reduced their ad campaigns.
When the lawsuit was initially filed in a Texas court, Musk took a combative stance on his platform, declaring:
"We tried being nice for 2 years and got nothing but empty words. Now, it is war."
X Corp's legal team argued that the advertisers violated antitrust laws designed to promote fair competition by acting against their own financial interests to collude against the platform. They specifically pointed to the companies' adherence to safety guidelines established by the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (Garm), a WFA initiative designed to prevent brand marketing from appearing alongside illegal or harmful digital content.
The defending companies consistently denied any illegal coordination, maintaining that they independently exercised their fundamental right to choose where to allocate their marketing budgets. Judge Boyle ultimately sided with the brands, noting in her opinion that Garm did not act as a competitor that buys and sells ad space.
"The very nature of the alleged conspiracy does not state an antitrust claim, and the court therefore has no qualm dismissing with prejudice," Boyle concluded.