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.”
Life goals, don't fuck up so bad that even Nestle wont work with you!
Maybe asking advertisers to 'go fuck yourselves' isn't such a bright idea, fuckwit.
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.
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?
;-)
Hey, when you're rich you can grab them by the balls.
*corpussy
i don't understand how it's a boycott or how is illegal or unfair
I’m honestly blown away that Nestle stopped or reduced advertising. It seems like twitter is exactly the home for such a terrible company.
Not if there's fewer there to see ads. They're still a business with a bottom line, even if what they do is terrible.
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.
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.
If suing companies for not advertising on your platform made any sense, porn sites could sue almost the whole economy.
He's gone crazy from power. People like that are dangerous.
P.S. He acts like some Russian government official tied to organised crime, who now think he owns this country and can do anything in there.
All people are like that. Our brains aren’t built to handle that kind of obscene wealth and power. It would break anyone, just as overindulging in any unhealthy activity.
The fix is to not let anyone accumulate that level of wealth.
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.
so a south African is suing a swiss company in American court? why just why is this theatrical bullshit allowed to go on so sick of this already times be changing too slowly we need the next phase already
Its an american company suing an american subsidiary of a swiss company. It makes sense. You dont have to try very hard to find the ridiculousness in these people but this isnt it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yea, in a sane justice system, that one tweet would rpget this case thrown out on day 1. In the world we now live in, I'm not so sure.
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.
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.
In an actual court? In Trumps america?
Unfortunately he sued in the North District of Texas, which is a maga kangaroo court
Nobody wants either side to actually win, we'll root for whoever is currently more messed up hoping they'll make a comeback and prolong the fight.
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!
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.
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.
"I ruined my business by supporting Nazis and it's all your fault!"
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.
Oh yes Nestle, the infamously lefty liberals.
wtf is musk even expecting to gain here
The legal system is essentially purchased at this point (remember everyone gloating about how the Onion bought InfoWars?)
There’s a chance he might find a toadie judge and get something out of this. Or at least be obnoxious enough that others might preemptively comply with something.
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?
What does any screaming toddler in the toy aisle expect to gain?
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.
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.
How dare your company not advertise on my company cause I’m a racist wanna be nazi twat.
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.
YouTube 10 years ago: we’re becoming as straight-edged as possible to keep advertisers around
Twitter now: Fuck you (wait we needed you)
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.
tHe mArKeT WiLl ReGuLaTe ItSeLf!
Suing companies for not advertising on a platform For Nazis, By Nazis™. 🤡
"The lawsuit isn’t the only place where executives have offered a pessimistic assessment of X’s business. The company’s owner Elon Musk reportedly told employees in January that “user growth is stagnant, revenue is unimpressive, and we’re barely breaking even.”"
Just fire some people, that’ll drive profits up.
"We're barely breaking even" mate, you're supposedly in the business of online services since the late 90s, you should know that they're generally "barely breaking even"
I wasn't aware Twitter was even breaking even in thd first place
Nazi vs Nestle. Always win for us.
let them fight.jpg
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-x
EU warning against advertising on X
… and Musk supporting anti-EU parties.
Let me ask you this: how many ads have you run on Twitter? Does that strike you as fair?
If he does, they will lose ALL advertising
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.
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…
No better way to get people who used to voluntarily give you money to give you more money than threatening them.
Throwing a temper tantrum because no-one wants to play with you. What a child!
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?
It's a Good Thing Elon doesn't Own the DOJ!
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/
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.
That's a no from me dawg.
I suppose after he gets done there he will come after people like me who have blocked every musk related business from my network.
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?
Can Elon and Yaccarino just die already
He’s levying tithes.
Musk knows no bottom, cause he is the bottom.
Tbf every body needs an asshole. Except the us, which seems to have two.
Ah, evil vs evil eats popcorn
What an ugly fuck Elon is. Ewwww
Anyone getting sued by him should just demand a jury trial. No way you'll get enough Americans to side with musk on anything.
Plenty actually, like former slaves from plantations which sold products to Nestle.
...it's part of the reason why Nestle is currently lobbying the EU to not dilute the supply chain act, those kinds of cases are a PITA for them, and the documentation they need to do for the supply chain act is exactly what they need to nib cases in the bud, "Here's the inspections we did, here are transcripts of anonymous interviews with random workers at the plantation", "If something slipped between the cracks we deeply regret that but we did do our due diligence, plaintiff's beef is with their ex boss, not with us".
It is absolutely more expensive to pay an army of lawyers to defend yourself than it is to pay workers proper local wages and document that. Not to mention that people who run slave plantations don't share their extra profit with Nestle.
The other reason is that they don't want smaller companies to have a competitive advantage: Smaller companies are not subject to those kinds of lawsuits, and also the ones complaining about the supply chain act. Nestle is also not at all keen on a consumer boycott from Africa.
I love this song
He should sue everyone that left X!!
