X settles WFA lawsuit, will ‘reset’ relationship on condition WFA will not ‘form or restart GARM or a similar initiative’
X (formerly Twitter) has agreed to settle its litigation against the World Federation of Advertisers (WFA) and “reset the relationship between the two organisations”.
In a joint statement published on X, the WFA committed to “not form or restart GARM or a similar initiative”.
The WFA also said it “reiterates its commitment to freedom of speech, a principle first included in WFA’s founding constitution back in 1953, and a principle it shares with X”.
The organisations added they are “fully aligned in the view that brands, platforms and consumers will all benefit from brand-safety innovation”.
GARM, or the Global Alliance for Responsible Media, was shut down on 9 August 2024. The closure came days after X initiated legal action against the group, alleging it had orchestrated an illegal advertising boycott of the microblogging platform.
X had also sued specific advertisers including Mars, CVS Health, and Colgate-Palmolive over similar allegations.
In March, a US judge dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice, ruling that X failed to show it had suffered any harm under federal antitrust laws.
GARM was founded in 2019 in the wake of the Christchurch mosque shootings in New Zealand to address advertisers’ role in digital safety. It lobbied social media platforms in particular to enhance transparency in ad placements and provide tools aimed at reducing the incidence of ads supporting harmful or illegal content.
X’s lawsuit was widely seen as frivolous by leaders in the advertising industry. Ruben Schreurs, chief strategy officer at media and marketing consultancy Ebiquity, told The Media Leader it was an example of “weaponised litigation”, noting that neither GARM nor the WFA hold any power over where brands decide to invest their advertising budgets.
Schreurs said: “We live in a sad reality when brands deciding to avoid having their ads appear next to, for example, racial slurs is seen as an ‘illegal conspiracy’ against a platform that explicitly decides not to moderate the content of their users. But here we are”.
GARM likewise argued the allegations “unfortunately misconstrue its purpose and activities”. However, given its small size and not-for-profit status, the litigation “caused a distraction and significantly drained its resources and finances”, leading the WFA to disband. This led critics to further accuse X of strategic litigation against public participation (SLAPP), lawsuits that are intended to censor critics by overburdening them with the cost of legal defence.
Nevertheless, during a roundtable on the topic of brand safety hosted by the International Advertising Association (IAA) and attended by The Media Leader under Chatham House rule at the Cannes Lions Festival of Creativity this summer, global advertising leaders broadly expressed a lack of appetite for GARM to return, preferring alternative approaches to brand safety.
For X, years of disinvestment from content moderation and the development of new AI tools have led to renewed concerns over brand safety on the platform. Earlier this year, X was criticised and investigated after its integrated chatbot, Grok, digitally undressed images of people, including minors, on the platform.
X owner Elon Musk has also faced substantial criticism for his constant racist posts, including writing recently that “Anyone who opposes remigration is a traitor” and “Deal with traitors before invaders”.
In a recent interview with The Economist, Musk denied that he was a racist, but defended his statements and later called Economist editor-in-chief Zanny Minton Beddoes a “traitor to the West”.
However, as The Media Leader has previously reported, advertisers have remained under “weaponised political pressure” to continue spending with X. The Wall Street Journal reported last year that Musk has used his influence with the Trump administration to “strongarm” advertisers, including by directly threatening to sue more advertisers if they don’t spend with the platform. Interpublic Group (IPG) and Publicis Groupe subsequently yielded to pressure, agreeing to spending deals with X.
In April, media holding groups WPP, Publicis and Dentsu settled a probe by the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) that claimed advertising agencies “distorted America’s modern public square” by “collud[ing] to impose common brand safety standards across the digital advertising industry”.
Omnicom, in order to acquire Interpublic Group last year, had also already agreed not to make advertising decisions based on what the FTC referred to as “political or ideological viewpoints”.
“Maybe some people do loathe me. And that’s probably true,” Musk admitted during the interview with The Economist. “I don’t care”.
‘Weaponised’ litigation: Industry stands ground against X following GARM shutdown