X has asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to revive its x advertiser boycott appeal, seeking to continue an antitrust suit against 10 companies after a federal judge in Texas dismissed the case in March.
The platform settled with the World Federation of Advertisers, the trade group initially named as a defendant, and agreed to remove it from the case. But X told the appeals court that its claims should proceed against Mars, CVS Health, Nestlé, Abbott Laboratories, Colgate-Palmolive, Lego, Pinterest, Tyson Foods, Shell and Ørsted A/S, according to an appellate filing reported by Ars Technica.
The filing is another step in a case X began in 2024, alleging that advertisers coordinated through the World Federation of Advertisers and its now-closed Global Alliance for Responsible Media, or GARM, to withhold advertising from the platform. Those allegations have not been established in court.
Why did X’s advertiser boycott case get dismissed?
U.S. District Judge Jane Boyle of the Northern District of Texas dismissed the suit in March. Her ruling concluded that the alleged facts did not amount to an antitrust violation, even if proved, according to MediaPost.
Boyle found that the harm X described was advertisers choosing competing social platforms rather than X. Under the antitrust precedent she cited, losing business because customers pick competitors does not by itself establish the kind of injury the antitrust laws address, Ars Technica reported.
The judge also distinguished the complaint from an effort by advertisers to control a market by restricting where X could sell ads. The companies were alleged to have decided not to purchase advertising from X for their own needs, Boyle wrote, as reported by MediaPost.
X says advertiser coordination distorted competition
On appeal, X argues that the alleged coordination removed the independent choices advertisers would otherwise make about whether to buy ads on the service. It says that conduct restrained trade and distorted competition in several markets. X also claims the alleged boycott damaged the platform and enabled rival social-media services to charge higher advertising prices. Those are X’s legal arguments, not findings by the court.
GARM was a World Federation of Advertisers initiative that developed definitions for certain harmful content and offered brand-safety guidelines for advertisers. The initiative closed after X filed its lawsuit in 2024. The federation had said GARM’s standards were voluntary and that members could choose whether to use them, according to MediaPost.
X initiated its appeal of Boyle’s decision in April and retained former U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement as lead counsel in May, MediaPost reported. Its latest filing narrows the target list by removing the federation, but asks the Fifth Circuit to reverse the dismissal as to the remaining advertisers.
The appeal is separate from X’s litigation against Media Matters, which involves different defendants and claims.
This story draws on original reporting from Ars Technica.
