Elon Musk’s X just sued a nonprofit advertising group out of existence | CNN Business
www.cnn.com
A major ad industry group is shutting down, days after Elon Musk-owned X filed a lawsuit that claimed the group illegally conspired to boycott advertising on his platform.
  • Talaraine@fedia.io
    30·
    3 months ago

    I think this article might be looking at this wrong. Corporations play all kinds of shell games with organizations and lawyers and there are plenty of examples where corps duck responsibility by dissolving or sometimes even reorganizing these organizations.

    Just because GARM has dissolved doesn’t mean this kind of movement is over… like at all. The article itself states several similar lawsuits that failed.

    • mkwt@lemmy.worldEnglish
      17·
      3 months ago

      Yeah. You can’t sue GARM, because GARM is dead. You win! Pay no attention to the recently incorporated “GARM 2”.

      • The_v@lemmy.worldEnglish
        11·
        3 months ago

        One time in my industry, a small startup company in Israel caused around 4 million dollars in damage due to negligence in the U.S., Mexico and Honduras.

        A month later that company was out of business. All their assets where purchased by another company. Conveniently the new owners were kids the old companies owners. The old owners where I hired on as “consultants”.

  • shalafi@lemmy.worldEnglish
    27·
    3 months ago

    “Everyone can see that advertising on X is a treacherous business relationship for advertisers,”

    Said the same yesterday. Imagine throwing money at X after all this.

  • MehBlah@lemmy.worldEnglish
    8·
    3 months ago

    Just the snakes eating their own tail. Nonprofit doesn’t mean unbiased or non commercial goals. Whoever was funding them will just move on to another non profit.

  • parpolEnglish
    528·
    3 months ago

    deleted by creator

    • Phegan@lemmy.worldEnglish
      111·
      3 months ago

      Nobody was conspiring, they just stopped advertising on a sinking ship.

      • parpolEnglish
        17·
        3 months ago

        deleted by creator

    • Rampsquatch@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      61·
      3 months ago

      Except I doubt the conspired. I find it far more likely that they all saw what Muskrat was doing and didn’t want to do business with him, because he’s an ass.

      Also he told them to go fuck themselves, so yea.

      • parpolEnglish
        15·
        3 months ago

        deleted by creator

    • mkwt@lemmy.worldEnglish
      11·
      3 months ago

      I rather doubt that buyer boycotts are actually illegal (with the exception of the anti Israel boycotts).

      • parpolEnglish
        13·
        3 months ago

        deleted by creator

        • NaibofTabr@infosec.pubEnglish
          4·
          3 months ago

          What monopoly? There are many platforms for ad placement. Boycotting one platform doesn’t make the rest of the market a monopoly.

          • parpolEnglish
            13·
            3 months ago

            deleted by creator

            • NaibofTabr@infosec.pubEnglish
              31·
              3 months ago

              By your logic, any group that organizes a boycott of any company is guilty of creating a monopoly. That is not how monopolies work, and it is also not illegal. It is a normal function of a free market.

              • parpolEnglish
                11·
                3 months ago

                deleted by creator

        • mkwt@lemmy.worldEnglish
          3·
          3 months ago

          A monopoly exists when there is only one seller of a product. A monopsony exists when there is only one buyer of a product.

          I’m really not sure that the Sherman Antitrust Act regulates artificial monopsonies the same way it does with monopolies

          • parpolEnglish
            11·
            3 months ago

            deleted by creator