On Thursday, a U.S. judge dismissed the antitrust lawsuit from X Corp., which accused the World Federation of Advertisers and major corporations like Mars, CVS Health, and Colgate-Palmolive of unlawfully boycotting Elon Musk’s social media enterprise.
U.S. District Judge Jane Boyle, sitting in federal court in Dallas, stated that X did not demonstrate any harm under federal antitrust legislation.
The lawsuit, initiated in 2024, claimed that the advertisers, through a World Federation of Advertisers initiative called the Global Alliance for Responsible Media, collectively withheld “billions of dollars in advertising revenue” from X, formerly known as Twitter.
Neither X nor the World Federation of Advertisers provided immediate comments upon request.
The lawsuit asserted that the advertisers acted against their economic interests in a conspiratorial manner that breached U.S. antitrust regulations.
CVS and the other parties involved denied any wrongdoing and requested Judge Boyle to dismiss the case, arguing that X did not prove they coordinated their actions but rather made independent business decisions regarding advertising spending.
The defendants mentioned in court documents that advertisers chose competing platforms independently due to worries over X’s commitment to brand safety after Musk’s 2022 acquisition, during which he terminated employees responsible for maintaining a user-friendly and family-oriented environment on the site.
In her ruling, Boyle noted that “the very nature of the alleged conspiracy does not establish an antitrust claim, thus the court has no hesitation in dismissing with prejudice.”
Defrauded shareholders
Musk’s acquisition of Twitter and his sometimes controversial management has led to multiple lawsuits.
Additionally, Musk has filed a lawsuit against Media Matters for America, following a 2023 report from the liberal advocacy group that showcased instances of antisemitic content appearing alongside ads from major companies like Apple and Oracle on X.
X accused Media Matters of manipulating the platform’s algorithms to place advertisers’ paid posts next to inflammatory content. This case is still pending.
Last week, a U.S. federal jury held Musk accountable for defrauding Twitter shareholders by attempting to lower the social media company’s stock price to either renegotiate or withdraw from the $44 billion acquisition in 2022.
On Thursday, Musk’s attorney urged a federal judge to reevaluate that verdict, arguing that jurors improperly used it to “send a message” by finding him liable.
French police on Tuesday raided the offices of Elon Musk’s social media network X and prosecutors have ordered the tech billionaire to face questions in April related to a widening investigation into the platform, including alleged ‘complicity’ of possessing and spreading child sexual abuse images and deepfakes.
In a letter submitted on Thursday in federal court in San Francisco, Musk’s attorney Alex Spiro claimed jurors “mocked” him by writing the amount “$4.20” in bright blue ink on the verdict form, while all other entries were in black ink.
The number 420 is often associated with marijuana culture. Musk, the richest person globally, has frequently referenced 420 in various interviews and tweets and incorporated it into business dealings with his companies.
Musk valued Twitter, now known as X, at $54.20 per share during his $44 billion acquisition.
Spiro contended that the jury’s “numerical joke” was “certainly intentional,” and when combined with other alleged trial mistakes, it raised doubts about the March 20 verdict, which could result in damages of up to $2.5 billion. He requested that U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, who presides over the case, conduct a “further inquiry.”
“The unavoidable conclusion from the verdict form is that the jury deemed it appropriate to use its verdict to deliver a message to Mr. Musk, rather than fulfilling its solemn duty to provide a fair verdict,” Spiro wrote.
Lawyers Frank Bottini and Mark Molumphy, representing the investors, jointly stated that Spiro’s letter was without merit.
“It is regrettable that Musk has once more chosen to criticize the court and jury instead of accepting responsibility for his actions,” Bottini and Molumphy remarked. “Considering the overwhelming evidence presented during the trial, it is excessive to attack a highly diligent jury simply for fulfilling its duty.”
Jurors found Musk liable for two statements he made shortly after announcing the acquisition, where he questioned if Twitter was inundated with fake and spam accounts, known as bots. However, they did not hold him liable for a third statement concerning bots, nor for any intent to defraud.
Twitter investors alleged that Musk’s criticisms of the company were intended to compel it to renegotiate his offer or allow him an exit. They claimed that Musk’s remarks negatively impacted Twitter’s stock price, resulting in losses when they sold their shares at reduced rates.