A judge granted Musk’s X, dismissing a lawsuit accusing the advertisers of illegal boycotts
Listen to this article
Average 5 minutes
The audio version of this article was created by AI-based technology. It can be mispronounced. We are working with our partners to continuously review and improve the results.
A US judge on Thursday dismissed X Corp’s antitrust lawsuit. which accuses the World Federation of Advertisers and major companies including Mars, CVS Health and Colgate-Palmolive of illegally boycotting entrepreneur Elon Musk’s social media company.
US District Judge Jane Boyle in federal court in Dallas said X failed to show that he was harmed under federal antitrust laws.
The company’s lawsuit, filed in 2024, said advertisers, using the World Federation of Advertisers’ Global Alliance for Responsible Media, collectively withheld “billions of dollars in advertising revenue” from X, formerly known as Twitter.
X and the World Federation of Advertisers did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
The lawsuit alleged that the advertisers acted against their economic interests by conspiring against the platform in violation of US antitrust law.
CVS and the other defendants had denied any wrongdoing and urged Boyle to dismiss the case. They argued that X failed to show that they acted in unison rather than making individual business decisions about when and where to spend ad dollars.
The companies that filed the lawsuit said advertisers independently chose rival platforms because of concerns about X ’s commitment to product safety after Musk took over in 2022, where he fired employees who said they had kept the site “friendly to users and staying with family-friendly products.”
In his order, Boyle wrote that “the very nature of the alleged conspiracy does not raise a claim for antitrust, and therefore the court has no hesitation in dismissing it with prejudice.”
Shareholders are defrauded
Musk’s take on Twitter and sometimes tumultuous administration have sparked lawsuits.
Musk also sued Media Matters for America, after the libertarian group’s 2023 report revealed examples of antisemitic material appearing alongside ads for green-chip companies like Apple and Oracle on X.
UX alleged that Media Matters used algorithms in place to create images for advertisers’ paid posts next to incendiary content. The case continues.
A US judge last week found Musk guilty of allegedly defrauding Twitter shareholders by trying to drive down the social media company’s stock price so he could renegotiate or withdraw from a $44 billion takeover in 2022.
On Thursday, Musk’s lawyer asked a federal judge to reconsider that decision, saying the jury used the decision unfairly to “send a message” by finding him guilty.
French police on Tuesday raided the offices of social media platform Elon Musk X and prosecutors ordered the tech billionaire to face questions in April over a widening investigation into the platform, including ‘alleged’ capture and distribution of child sex abuse images and deepfakes.
In a letter filed Thursday in federal court in San Francisco, Musk’s attorney Alex Spiro also accused jurors of “ridiculing” his client by writing the number “$4.20” in bright blue on the verdict form, even though the rest of the text was written in black.
The number 420 is associated with the culture of cannabis. Musk, the richest man in the world, has spoken about 420 in interviews and tweets, and used them in business activities in his various companies.
Musk valued Twitter, now known as X, at $54.20 US per share in his $44 billion purchase.
Spiro said the jury’s “joke of numbers” was “undoubtedly intentional,” and when added to other alleged trial errors cast doubt on the March 20 verdict, where damages could reach $2.5 billion. He said “further investigation” by US District Judge Charles Breyer, who is presiding over the case, is needed.
“The inescapable conclusion from the face of the verdict form is that the justices saw fit to use their decision to send a message to Mr. Musk, rather than fulfilling their difficult task of rendering a fair verdict,” Spiro wrote.
Front burner39:39Front Burner Presents: The Making of Musk, Episode 1
Frank Bottini and Mark Molumphy, two lawyers for the investors, in a joint statement called Spiro’s letter without merit.
“It is unfortunate that Musk once again decided to criticize the court and the judges, rather than take responsibility for his own behavior,” said Bottini and Molumphy. “Given the overwhelming evidence presented in the case, it goes beyond the pale to attack a diligent judge simply for doing his job.”
Jurors found Musk guilty of two statements he made shortly after announcing the purchase, in which he questioned whether Twitter was full of fake and spammy accounts, known as bots. They did not find him guilty of the third statement about the bots, or of conspiracy to defraud.
Twitter investors say Musk has criticized the company for forcing him to renegotiate his proposal, or let him out. They said Musk’s comments hurt Twitter’s stock price, causing losses when they sold their shares at depressed prices.
