X files antitrust suit against advertising groups over ‘systematic illegal boycott’

Linda Yaccarino, CEO of X, testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee at the Dirksen Senate Office Building on January 31, 2024 in Washington, DC.

Image Credits: Alex Wong / Getty Images

X CEO Linda Yaccarino on Tuesday announced that the social media platform has filed an antitrust lawsuit against the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM) and the World Federation of Advertisers (WFA).

In a video posted to X, Yaccarino accuses the organizations — along with GARM members CVS Health, Mars, Orsted and Unilever — of what Yaccarino calls a “systematic illegal boycott” of the platform.

The executive cites a July report from the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee titled, “GARM’s (Global Alliance for Responsible Media) Harm.” According to the report:

Through GARM, large corporations, advertising agencies, and industry associations participated in boycotts and other coordinated action to demonetize platforms, podcasts, news outlets, and other content deemed disfavored by GARM and its members. This collusion can have the effect of eliminating a variety of content and viewpoints available to consumers.

GARM was founded by the World Federation of Advertisers in 2019 in a bid to “help the industry address the challenge of illegal or harmful content on digital media platforms and its monetization via advertising,” according to the organization’s site.

The Judiciary report specifically addresses boycotts of X, The Joe Rogan Experience/Spotify and “Candidates, platforms, and news outlets with opposing political views.”

In particular it addresses organization member concerns over Elon Musk’s acquisition of the platform then known as Twitter. One member, according to the report, suggested that fellow members stop paid advertisements on the service, contributing to a precipitous drop in revenue.

“GARM’s internal documents show that GARM was asked by a member to ‘arrange a meeting and hear more about [GARM’s] perspectives about the Twitter situation and a possible boycott from many companies,” the report’s authors note. GARM also held ‘extensive debriefing and discussion around Elon Musks’ [sic] takeover of Twitter,’ providing ample opportunity for the boycott to be organized.”

In her own statement, Yaccarino claims that GARM’s “illegal behavior of these organizations and their executives cost X billions of dollars.”

Musk was less measured in his response, posting, “We tried being nice for 2 years and got nothing but empty words. Now, it is war.” The executive had similarly incendiary words for advertisers last year, stating, “If somebody’s going to try to blackmail me with advertising, blackmail me with money? Go f*** yourself. Go. F***. Yourself. Is that clear?”

He also promised at the time to document companies participating in the boycott “in great detail.”

The suit follows a recent governmental crackdown on tech antitrust. Yesterday, Google lost a landmark battle alleging the software giant of maintaining a search monopoly through illegal acts.

X joined GARM in early July, noting, “X is committed to the safety of our global town square and proud to be part of the GARM community” through its Safety account.

X files antitrust suit against advertising groups over ‘systematic illegal boycott’

Linda Yaccarino, CEO of X, testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee at the Dirksen Senate Office Building on January 31, 2024 in Washington, DC.

Image Credits: Alex Wong / Getty Images

X CEO Linda Yaccarino on Tuesday announced that the social media platform has filed an antitrust lawsuit against the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM) and the World Federation of Advertisers (WFA).

In a video posted to X, Yaccarino accuses the organizations — along with GARM members CVS Health, Mars, Orsted and Unilever — of what Yaccarino calls a “systematic illegal boycott” of the platform.

The executive cites a July report from the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee titled, “GARM’s (Global Alliance for Responsible Media) Harm.” According to the report:

Through GARM, large corporations, advertising agencies, and industry associations participated in boycotts and other coordinated action to demonetize platforms, podcasts, news outlets, and other content deemed disfavored by GARM and its members. This collusion can have the effect of eliminating a variety of content and viewpoints available to consumers.

GARM was founded by the World Federation of Advertisers in 2019 in a bid to “help the industry address the challenge of illegal or harmful content on digital media platforms and its monetization via advertising,” according to the organization’s site.

The Judiciary report specifically addresses boycotts of X, The Joe Rogan Experience/Spotify and “Candidates, platforms, and news outlets with opposing political views.”

In particular it addresses organization member concerns over Elon Musk’s acquisition of the platform then known as Twitter. One member, according to the report, suggested that fellow members stop paid advertisements on the service, contributing to a precipitous drop in revenue.

“GARM’s internal documents show that GARM was asked by a member to ‘arrange a meeting and hear more about [GARM’s] perspectives about the Twitter situation and a possible boycott from many companies,” the report’s authors note. GARM also held ‘extensive debriefing and discussion around Elon Musks’ [sic] takeover of Twitter,’ providing ample opportunity for the boycott to be organized.”

In her own statement, Yaccarino claims that GARM’s “illegal behavior of these organizations and their executives cost X billions of dollars.”

Musk was less measured in his response, posting, “We tried being nice for 2 years and got nothing but empty words. Now, it is war.” The executive had similarly incendiary words for advertisers last year, stating, “If somebody’s going to try to blackmail me with advertising, blackmail me with money? Go f*** yourself. Go. F***. Yourself. Is that clear?”

He also promised at the time to document companies participating in the boycott “in great detail.”

The suit follows a recent governmental crackdown on tech antitrust. Yesterday, Google lost a landmark battle alleging the software giant of maintaining a search monopoly through illegal acts.

X joined GARM in early July, noting, “X is committed to the safety of our global town square and proud to be part of the GARM community” through its Safety account.

Apple's antitrust suit is a silver lining for Epic Games

Epic Games Inc. Fortnite App As Gamers Flock

Image Credits: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg / Getty Images

The Department of Justice and 17 state attorneys general filed a massive lawsuit against Apple on Thursday morning, accusing the company of monopolistic smartphone practices. Meanwhile, Fortnite maker Epic Games has been accusing Apple’s iOS App Store of antitrust violations for years in an ongoing, arduous legal battle.

Epic is never named explicitly in the 88-page lawsuit, but the gaming company’s complaints are echoed across extensive discussion of the App Store’s anticompetitive practices.

“Apple often enforces its App Store rules arbitrarily,” the suit says. “And it frequently uses App Store rules and restrictions to penalize and restrict developers that take advantage of technologies that threaten to disrupt, disintermediate, compete with, or erode Apple’s monopoly power.”

Epic’s core complaint about the App Store is that developers must cede 30% of in-app purchases to Apple. And unlike Android devices, iPhones do not allow for sideloading apps, meaning that Apple has control over any app in its App Store. For almost a decade, Epic CEO Tim Sweeney has been a staunch critic of the revenue cut, which he thinks is monopolistic and predatory toward smaller companies. In 2020, Epic made it possible for Fortnite players to pay Epic directly, rather than giving a cut to Apple — then, Apple removed Epic from the App Store, and now, four years later, we’re still watching the two companies duke it out in various legal proceedings.

While a judge ruled at the time that Apple can’t prevent apps from routing users to alternative payment methods, the iPhone maker was ultimately not deemed a monopoly.

Given past rulings in Apple’s favor, it’s surprising that this lawsuit is aligned with some of Epic’s grievances.

“While Apple has reduced the tax it collects from a subset of developers, Apple still extracts 30 percent from many app makers,” the suit says. “Apple also generates substantial and increasing revenue by charging developers to help users find their apps in the App Store—something that, for years, Apple told developers was part of the reason they paid a 30 percent tax in the first place.”

Epic isn’t the only large company that has faced off against Apple. In January, as developers prepared for the European Union’s new Digital Markets Act (DMA) to take effect, Spotify also stepped into the ring, calling Apple’s compliance plan “extortion” and a “complete and total farce.” Then in March, Apple was fined €1.84 billion for breaching antitrust rules in the market for music streaming services.

On Thursday, the Coalition for App Fairness (CAF) — which includes Epic Games, Spotify, Deezer, Proton and other companies — released a statement in favor of the DOJ’s action against Apple.

“With today’s announcement, the Department of Justice is taking a strong stand against Apple’s stranglehold over the mobile app ecosystem, which stifles competition and hurts American consumers and developers alike,” said Rick VanMeter, executive director of the CAF. “The DOJ complaint details Apple’s long history of illegal conduct — abusing their App Store guidelines and developer agreements to increase prices, extract exorbitant fees, degrade user experiences, and choke off competition. The DOJ joins regulators around the world, who have recognized the many harms of Apple’s abusive behavior and are working to address it.”

Epic Games declined TechCrunch’s request to comment. Sweeney, who is usually vocal about these issues, has also been reticent on the matter.

“I’ll be off Twitter antitrust commentary between now and the end of my testimony in the Australian Epic v Apple and Google trial in Melbourne,” Sweeney posted, alongside a photo he took in Melbourne.

Apple sued by DOJ over iPhone monopoly claims

For more on Apple’s antitrust lawsuit, check here:

Apple sued by DOJ over iPhone monopoly claimsDOJ claims green bubbles are an issue in Apple iPhone antitrust lawsuitApple’s iPhone is not a monopoly like Windows was a monopoly Epic, Spotify, Deezer, Match Group and others applaud DOJ’s Apple lawsuit

Read more about the DOJ's antitrust suit against Apple on TechCrunch

Apple Watch Series 9, blue

Here's what the DOJ suit could mean for Apple Watch

Apple Watch Series 9, blue

Image Credits: Darrell Etherington/TechCrunch

Apple’s ecosystem play has — at once — been the envy and bane of the consumer electronics industry for decades. Following a lawsuit filed by the U.S. Department of Justice on Thursday, it’s now also at the center of strong antitrust charges levied against the hardware giant.

The sweeping lawsuit, jointly filed with the attorneys general of 16 states and the District of Columbia, focuses primarily on the iPhone and controversial practices like the company’s walled-off approach to app sales. The Apple Watch gets some face time in the filing, as well.

The suit rightly notes that the Apple Watch is “only compatible with the iPhone” — a longstanding complaint among Android users interested in picking up what is far and away the market share leader.

“So,” the filing continues, “if Apple can steer a user towards buying an Apple Watch, it becomes more costly for that user to purchase a different kind of smartphone because doing so requires the user to abandon their costly Apple Watch and purchase a new, Android-compatible smartwatch.”

The filing goes on to to cite the appeal of “cross-platform smartwatches,” which it claims, “can reduce iPhone users’ dependence on Apple’s proprietary hardware and software.” There’s no doubt that a big piece of Apple’s ecosystem play is compelling users to stick with its own hardware across a range of product lines. That’s an important piece of the “just works” ethos.

Apple is not, however, alone in ensuring that certain functionality only operates as stated with first-party hardware. This has become an increasingly essential piece of auxiliary products like smartwatches and Bluetooth headphones. One important difference, though, is that the majority of the non-Apple handsets out in the world run the same operating system, affording an added level of cross-manufacturer functionality.

Apple sued by DOJ over iPhone monopoly claims

The filing cites an internal message from an Apple VP of Product Marketing, noting that the watch’s limited compatibility, “may help prevent iPhone customers from switching.” The suit primarily discusses the Apple Watch in terms of its relation to iPhone sales, though it does accuse the company of “limiting third-party access to new and improved APIs for smartwatch functionality.

The Apple Watch has historically been even more dominant in its respective category than the iPhone in the global market. Should the DOJ’s suit force the company to open Apple Watch functionality, it would not only limit watch-based iPhone sales, it would also potentially open the device to Android users, which, in turn, could have a positive impact on sales.

The authors of the filing also got in a little dig against the Watch’s origin (and, perhaps, a nod to Pebble), writing that the company, “copied the idea of a smartwatch from third-party developers.”

For more on Apple’s antitrust lawsuit, check here:

Apple sued by DOJ over iPhone monopoly claimsDOJ claims green bubbles are an issue in Apple iPhone antitrust lawsuitWhy Apple’s antitrust lawsuit could be a silver lining for Epic GamesApple’s iPhone is not a monopoly like Windows was a monopoly Epic, Spotify, Deezer, Match Group and others applaud DOJ’s Apple lawsuitDOJ calls out Apple for breaking iMessage-on-Android solution, Beeper