• empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    56
    ·
    2 months ago

    You can’t sue people for… making normal business decisions? You’d think Musk would understand that if he was a real businessman, LOL RIGHT he’s not.

  • Bahnd Rollard@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    2 months ago

    My head-cannon from the lawyers going something like this.

    “Thank you Mr. Musk for the lawsuit, we had a lot of fun reading it. Especially the parts you drew (I liked the blue dinosauar). Before we begin, we would like to let you know the legal fees for this case are coming directly from the portion of the advertising budget we allocated to the website formerly known as Twitter”

    Probably more entertaining than the actual cases.

  • NutWrench@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    69
    ·
    2 months ago

    You literally told your advertisers to go fark themselves, Elmo. Several times. This is what consequences look like.

  • Avatar_of_Self@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    42
    ·
    2 months ago

    A House Republican lead committee said that the boycott is illegal but also said they don’t know if there’s really a law against it.

    Republicans: Corporations should have freedom of expression (Citizens United)!

    Also Republicans: Corporations shouldn’t be able to choose what platforms to run ads on!

  • Vanth@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    2 months ago

    I had to skim quite a few down the search results to find an article that described what it meant by suing for “illegal boycott” in more detail.

    https://variety.com/2024/digital/news/elon-musk-x-sues-advertisers-garm-boycott-1236097110/

    X’s lawsuit alleged that the advertisers’ “boycott” violated Section 1 the U.S.’s Sherman Act antitrust law, which broadly prohibits agreements among distinct actors that unreasonably restrain trade, “by withholding purchases of digital advertising from Twitter.”

    “The conduct of Defendants and their co-conspirators alleged herein is per se illegal, or, in the alternative, illegal under the Rule of Reason or ‘quick look’ analytical framework,” the X lawsuit said. “There are no procompetitive effects of the group boycott, which was not reasonably related to, or reasonably necessary for, any procompetitive objectives of the GARM Brand Safety Standards.”

    The “unlawful conduct” alleged by X is the subject of “an active investigation” by the House of Representatives’ Committee on the Judiciary, the lawsuit said. The committee’s interim report issued on July 10 concluded that, “The extent to which GARM has organized its trade association and coordinates actions that rob consumers of choices is likely illegal under the antitrust laws and threatens fundamental American freedoms. The information uncovered to date of WFA and GARM’s collusive conduct to demonetize disfavored content is alarming.”

      • Vanth@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        I would think. And if that proof exists, it will come up at the appropriate time during legal proceedings. I’m skeptical there is any.

        I guess they could call the entire existence of GARM to be collusion; companies banding together to “punish” companies who don’t follow their guidelines. But X is (was?) a voluntary member of GARM, so it seems that would be a difficult argument for them to make without implicating themselves too.

    • lennivelkant@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      But what would it even change? The businesses would no longer be able to make an explicit agreement, probably have to pay a fine, but can they be forced to advertise or will they just proceed to coincidentally all decide not to advertise without explicitly colluding?

    • weew@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      If Musk is part of that collusion, then is it still a conspiracy?

      He told them to fuck off, they fucked off.

  • billwashere@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    2 months ago

    Elon: Moooom, make the advertisers pay me

    Mom: Well maybe quit being a little shit and being a whiny little spoiled bastard, hmmm?

  • magnetosphere@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    90
    ·
    2 months ago

    This is hilarious.

    Should every company, regardless of whether they’ve advertised on Twitter before, be federally mandated to spend a certain percentage of their advertising budget on Musk’s little shitshow?

    What, exactly, is the solution he has in mind?

    • DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Conservatives are hypocrites and morons.

      But, hey, if he wants to argue that money isn’t expression and corporations don’t have freedom of speech I won’t try to stop him accidentally overturning Citizens United.

      Even if he wins, that still wouldn’t even work, the fucking lemon, you can’t force people to buy your products.

  • DxK@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    2 months ago

    Elon Musk: Your honor these mean jerks won’t pay to advertise in my nazi bar and it hurts my feels.

  • Altomes@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    78
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    One of the most poignant comments I’ve seen on this is it’s a ploy to draw attention from his PAC and other negative media

    • Hellinabucket@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      Dunno how much attention it’s gonna draw away from it when it inevitably comes out that his PAC funded the committee that turned over the “evidence” that’s being used to prop up his court case.

    • pikmeir@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      While I think it will have that effect, Musk isn’t smart enough to have thought about it that deeply.

      • AstralPath@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        2 months ago

        Don’t underestimate him. He’s shown he’s a spoiled brat, but he’s not shown that he’s incapable of elaborate and spiteful plots to get his way.

        A smart decision in his eyes might be a dumb one in ours but that doesn’t mean he’s actually stupid.

        Writing him off as an idiot is a one way ticket to being blindsided while you’re distracted by something else.

        • pikmeir@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          2 months ago

          But I do think he’s an idiot. There’s nothing to suggest he is intelligent beyond the average person, and many decisions he’s made that suggest he’s less intelligent.