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:
He must think it’s like the old dealership laws. Once you enter into an agreement, you can’t exit.
Advertise once, advertise forever!
Preach. Never do business with a professional troll.
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.
deleted by creator
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.
Unfortunately he sued in the North District of Texas, which is a maga kangaroo 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?
“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
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-xThe eu commission warning was officially only aimed at their internal services, it wasn’t a mandate that all organisations within the eu should stop advertising on x. Though it wouldn’t surprise me if it comes to a total ban in the eu, X is already under investigation for disinformation.
it wasn’t a mandate
Yes it was “just” a warning for EU offices, But that’s still pretty remarkable, and this warning is widely publicly known, and I bet companies take notice.
But the point was also, that it’s not just GARM that had problems with how things are at Xitter, it’s official from EU that it’s not desirable to use Xitter anymore, based on much the same reasons GARM stated. For theirrecommendationwarning to avoid advertising on Xitter.So it’s evidence that GARM didn’t just make it up to harm Xitter. The same conclusions were reached elsewhere.
Though it wouldn’t surprise me if it comes to a total ban in the eu, X is already under investigation for disinformation.
We should absolutely do that, and introduce a special Tesla Tariff of 200%, due to unfair competition because the Tesla CEO is part of the government, and it is a blatantly conflict of interest for Musk to be there and be CEO of several companies at the same time.
Jimmy Carter sold his beloved Peanut Farm exactly to avoid a conflict of interest, but the American politicians, the public and the media today don’t give a shit about corruption. But it’s still illegal in EU.
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
If suing companies for not advertising on your platform made any sense, porn sites could sue almost the whole economy.
How long until Tesla sues me for buying a Toyota?
Currently scheduled for 18th of March.
Just in time for Toyotathon
Or is Toyotathon in time for this? The world may never know…
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.
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.
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.
To be clear, its not that twitter is too fucked up for nestle to work with, they absolutely would if they thought it would benefit them. Its that twitter has become so toxic that they see advertising there as a net negative.
To be able extra clear, fuck twitter, fuck nestle and fuuuuuuuck Musk.
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.
He would wish that he did. He hates his kids
He built a compound for all his kids and baby mommas to live at. I’m sure he excluded his trans kid from that though.
It’s worse for him if they are kept alive because it’s a public reminder how much they hate him. Nestle starting shipping his kids the good food reserved for the lizard people only
They needn’t to do so. His children are dead to him.
How dare your company not advertise on my company cause I’m a racist wanna be nazi twat.
What an ugly fuck Elon is. Ewwww
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.
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.
Easy, you pack courts with shills, you eliminate government oversight, and then you do whatever you want.
I hate this timeline so much.
Maybe it’ll turn around after the Bell protests
You mean the Bell Riots that started September 1, 2024? I’m not sure how to tell you this, but that didn’t happen on schedule.
The actual “easy” part is that you can sue anyone for pretty much anything. Suing is entirely different from winning the case.
Why they think they have a chance of winning is the weirder question, especially when Musk publically told the advertisers to go fuck themselves.
Don’t have to win, just drag the case out, causing both sides to spend fortunes on legal fees. Guess who has the most money.
X has an estimated market cap of $9.4 billion, whereas Nestlé has a market cap of $219 billion. That’s a corporate superpower with no qualms about monopolizing freshwater or bait- & switching breast milk formula from babies. And it’s just one of the companies they’re taking on, with a shitty case to boot. So yeah… if I was Elon I would keep my head down.
Paying a couple of five or six figure sums to continue advertising on X, versus paying millions to fight a protracted legal battle - I know which option the shareholders of those companies will be pushing for.
Sure thing! I found an article that explains it better than I could:
Oh man. I wish OP would have posted this first.
You can sue for anything.
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.
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.
I think the attempted argument is anti-competitive collusion among all these companies. That GARM, fundamentally, is illegal as an anti-competitive initiative.
Thank you. This is exactly what kind of response I was looking for. I couldn’t find any logic in the argument at all. So essentially the organization is illegal. That at least makes some sense.
Edit: I mean I still think it’s bullshit but I can understand the argument now.
Nazi vs Nestle. Always win for us.
let them fight.jpg
