The lawsuit is against the industry trade group known as "GARM" (Global Alliance for Responsible Media). GARM is a cross-industry initiative established by the World Federation of Advertisers (WFA) to address the impacts of purportedly harmful content on digital media platforms and in digital advertising.
In 2021, GARM launched a measurement for digital brand safety which is used to chart progress on removing harmful content from ad-supported media. Partners in this endeavor included the World Economic Forum’s Platform for Shaping the Future of Media, Entertainment and Sport, NBCUniversal, MSNBC, Facebook, and Google. GARM has also used advertisers to push for the concept of safety of online environments towards what the group calls “sustainability of media".
In July 2024, founder of media outlet “Daily Wire” Ben Shapiro spoke at a House Judiciary Committee hearing titled “Collusion in the Global Alliance for Responsible Media” in which he claimed GARM’s efforts were censoring conservative speech online. In his opening statement, Shapiro claimed that GARM acts like a cartel while alleging “Its members account for 90% of ad spending in the United States, almost a trillion dollars. In other words, if you’re not getting ad dollars from GARM members, it’s nearly impossible to run an ad-based business. And if you’re not following their preferred political narratives…you will not be deemed brand safe. Your business will be throttled.” Shapiro also claimed that GARM’s criteria for “brand safety standards” on restricting content considered “Hate speech,” “Harassment,” “Misinformation” and “insensitive;” “irresponsible” and “harmful” treatment of “debated sensitive social issues;” is “highly subjective in theory. And…purely partisan in practice.” He further called on Congress to, “investigate the informal and perhaps formal arrangements between censorship cartels like GARM and executive branch agencies,” while claiming Congress itself must stop violating “free speech principles.
In the current lawsuit, it is being alleged that:
The conduct of Defendants and their co-conspirators alleged herein is a group boycott in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1. Defendants and their co-conspirators agreed to boycott Twitter by withholding purchases of digital advertising from Twitter.
The conduct of Defendants and their co-conspirators alleged herein is per se illegal, or, in the alternative, illegal under the Rule of Reason or “quick look” analytical framework. There are no procompetitive effects of the group boycott, which was not reasonably related to, or reasonably necessary for, any procompetitive objectives of the GARM Brand Safety Standards.
Alternatively, there are no procompetitive effects of the group boycott that outweigh its substantial anticompetitive effects or that could not be achieved through less restrictive means.
The conduct of Defendants and their co-conspirators has caused injury and damage to X in the form of lost profits.
The conduct alleged herein constitutes an unlawful agreement to exchange competitively sensitive information among competing advertisers in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1. Defendants and their co-conspirators agreed to exchange information relating to their willingness and intent to boycott Twitter by withholding purchases of digital advertising from Twitter.
