- Elon Musk's X plans to add more defendants to its lawsuit against advertisers.
- The lawsuit centers on the Global Alliance for Responsible Media and its advertiser members.
- A new legal filing says X wants to add "multiple additional defendants" to the suit.
Elon Musk's X is getting ready to add more defendants to its ongoing lawsuit that accuses advertisers of illegally conspiring to boycott the platform.
X initially filed its lawsuit in a Texas court in August. The complaint alleges members of the Global Alliance for Responsible Media, a now-defunct initiative from the advertiser trade body the World Federation of Advertisers, colluded to "collectively withhold billions in advertising revenue" from X (formerly Twitter).
The current defendants in the case are the WFA, CVS Health, Mars, the energy company Orsted, and Twitch. (Twitch was added to the lawsuit later than the other defendants; Unilever was initially a named defendant but reached an agreement with X and was dropped from the suit in October.)
A joint filing from X's legal representatives and counsel for the defendants revealed that X plans to file a second amended complaint, "in which it will add multiple additional defendants."
The filing says X will share a draft of its second complaint with the current defendants by January 20 and file it with the court by January 25.
Reps for X, CVS, Mars, Orsted, and Twitch didn't respond to requests for comment.
A WFA spokesperson declined to comment. The WFA has previously said that it intends to defend itself in court and that it is confident that the outcome will demonstrate that it adhered to competition law.
'Brand safety' is a growing political flash point
News that X could add more defendants to its suit comes at a fraught time for marketers and for the practice of "brand safety."
Much of X's lawsuit against GARM and its members was based on an investigation from the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Jim Jordan. The investigation looked into whether advertisers were illegally banding together to demonetize conservative platforms and voices in violation of antitrust law. Jordan is continuing to probe advertisers and agencies about their work with GARM.
The Democratic staff of the House Judiciary Committee published their own report last month, accusing Jordan of abusing his oversight power.
Their report said the ultimate goal of Jordan and his allies was not to"conduct antitrust oversight as they claim, but rather to silence criticism of harmful online content and those who promote it."
Russell Dye, a spokesperson for the Judiciary Committee, said its investigation proved the collusion of left-wing advocates to secretly censor conservative speech.
"Those in the media and elsewhere that deny the collusion supported by clear documentation are themselves pushing disinformation," Dye said in a statement.
GARM itself discontinued operations after it was sued by X, saying that as a small, nonprofit organization, it lacked the resources to fight the lawsuit.
The WFA is also facing a separate lawsuit from the video site Rumble, which accuses GARM, the ad agency holding company WPP, and its media arm GroupM of collectively agreeing to restrict advertising on social platforms, including Rumble. Elsewhere, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton launched an investigation into the WFA in November over advertiser boycotts.
This month, Meta announced plans to shake up its content-moderation policies in the US, which had some advertisers worried the tech giant was loosening its brand-safety standards. However, unlike in the past, there hasn't yet been any public suggestion that brands intend to pull ad dollars from Meta in response. Advertising insiders told BI it's partly a reflection of how reliant marketers have become on Meta, but also that advertisers have become more cautious about publicly criticizing or boycotting platforms and media, given the current political environment.
