Article:
In a surprising turn of events, X, the social network formerly known as Twitter, has filed an antitrust lawsuit against a trade group and several advertisers. The lawsuit alleges that they conspired to withhold billions of dollars in ad spending, fearing that X would deviate from certain brand safety standards for advertising. X's attorneys filed the lawsuit on Tuesday in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

The lawsuit comes after X CEO Linda Yaccarino posted an open letter to advertisers, expressing concerns about the marketplace of ideas being undermined and certain viewpoints not being funded due to an illegal boycott. X claims that the actions of the trade group, called the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM), and its members have cost them billions of dollars.

According to the lawsuit, GARM, in collaboration with dozens of advertisers, engaged in a conspiracy to collectively withhold advertising revenue from X. X states that they became a member of GARM, agreeing to adopt and enforce the brand safety standards set by the trade group. However, X alleges that major brand advertisers, including Unilever, Mars Inc., CVS Health, and Ørsted, abruptly boycotted Twitter by discontinuing or significantly reducing their advertising purchases.

X's lawsuit contends that this boycott violated the U.S. Sherman Act antitrust law, which forbids agreements among distinct actors that unreasonably restrain trade. The complaint asserts that there were no procompetitive effects of the boycott and that it was not necessary for any objectives of the GARM Brand Safety Standards.

Elon Musk, the face behind X, took to the platform to express his stance on the lawsuit, stating, "We tried peace for 2 years, now it is war." X seeks unspecified monetary damages and injunctive relief under the antitrust laws of the United States.

The allegations raised by X are also the subject of an active investigation by the House of Representatives' Committee on the Judiciary. Their interim report, released on July 10, expressed concerns about GARM's collusive conduct and potential violation of antitrust laws, stating, "The extent to which GARM has organized its trade association and coordinates actions that rob consumers of choices is likely illegal."

Relevant parties, including the World Federation of Advertisers, Unilever, Mars Inc., CVS Health, and Ørsted, have not yet responded to requests for comment regarding the lawsuit.

As the case unfolds, it remains to be seen how the court will address these allegations and their potential implications for the advertising industry.