• Todd Bonzalez@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    1 year ago

    You can sue people for choosing not to do business with you?

    Musk is such a fucking baby. He has no basis for this. He made major changes to the site, including a complete rebrand, and advertisers left. That’s the fucking free market, and he’s gonna sue?

    • RedditWanderer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      Even funnier, he literally told advertisers to go fuck themselves lol. Now he goes whining back to Mommy for new rules for his little kingdom.

        • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          They’d never even hear it. To give this lawsuit any credibility, they’d have to effectively say that businesses spending/donating money is not free speech. Which would effectively be the opposite of Citizens United.

            • solomon42069@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              All that matters is the sponsorship tier - will you be flying the judge out to a vacation? Buying their mother a house? The outcome is solely dependent on your investment in the court. Justice.

    • helenslunch@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      You can sue people for choosing not to do business with you?

      You can sue people for whatever you want. But that’s not what they’re suing them for, if you actually read the article. They’re suing for collusion.

      X CEO Linda Yaccarino said in a video announcement that the lawsuit stemmed in part from evidence uncovered by the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, which she said showed a “group of companies organized a systematic illegal boycott” against X.

      The Republican-led committee had a hearing last month looking at whether current laws are “sufficient to deter anticompetitive collusion in online advertising.”

      I don’t know if that’s illegal or not.

      • seaQueue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Ah yes, the pinnacle of small govt: legislating how advertisers spend their money when they won’t spend that money on Republican platforms

      • SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It would make an interesting precedent. Bud Light can then sue over the boycott with the whole LGBTQ thing because some didn’t buy their beer. Celebrities being cancelled can try to sue magazines for not running their articles or ads. It’s going to be such an unholy mess.

  • Empricorn@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    You can sue your… customers, basically for choosing not to do business with you!?

    Even if he wins a one-time payment (no way), how could this do anything but make everyone not want to advertise on Twitter??

    • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      I can’t wrap my head around the ridiculousness of it. Or grasp why some US political figures are lapping it up.

      Imagine McDonald’s suing you because you didn’t buy enough big macs this quarter.

    • nonailsleft@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      You don’t understand. Bad publicity is good publicity.

      Or maybe, in this particular case… No publicity.

      No publicity is good bad publicity like… Well yeah you might have a point there

  • empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    You can’t sue people for… making normal business decisions? You’d think Musk would understand that if he was a real businessman, LOL RIGHT he’s not.

  • MynameisAllen@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    One of the most poignant comments I’ve seen on this is it’s a ploy to draw attention from his PAC and other negative media

    • pikmeir@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Whole I think it will have that effect, Musk isn’t smart enough to have thought about it that deeply.

    • Hellinabucket@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Dunno how much attention it’s gonna draw away from it when it inevitably comes out that his PAC funded the committee that turned over the “evidence” that’s being used to prop up his court case.

  • magnetosphere@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is hilarious.

    Should every company, regardless of whether they’ve advertised on Twitter before, be federally mandated to spend a certain percentage of their advertising budget on Musk’s little shitshow?

    What, exactly, is the solution he has in mind?

  • Vanth@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    I had to skim quite a few down the search results to find an article that described what it meant by suing for “illegal boycott” in more detail.

    https://variety.com/2024/digital/news/elon-musk-x-sues-advertisers-garm-boycott-1236097110/

    X’s lawsuit alleged that the advertisers’ “boycott” violated Section 1 the U.S.’s Sherman Act antitrust law, which broadly prohibits agreements among distinct actors that unreasonably restrain trade, “by withholding purchases of digital advertising from Twitter.”

    “The conduct of Defendants and their co-conspirators alleged herein is per se illegal, or, in the alternative, illegal under the Rule of Reason or ‘quick look’ analytical framework,” the X lawsuit said. “There are no procompetitive effects of the group boycott, which was not reasonably related to, or reasonably necessary for, any procompetitive objectives of the GARM Brand Safety Standards.”

    The “unlawful conduct” alleged by X is the subject of “an active investigation” by the House of Representatives’ Committee on the Judiciary, the lawsuit said. The committee’s interim report issued on July 10 concluded that, “The extent to which GARM has organized its trade association and coordinates actions that rob consumers of choices is likely illegal under the antitrust laws and threatens fundamental American freedoms. The information uncovered to date of WFA and GARM’s collusive conduct to demonetize disfavored content is alarming.”

  • DxK@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Elon Musk: Your honor these mean jerks won’t pay to advertise in my nazi bar and it hurts my feels.

  • Avatar_of_Self@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    A House Republican lead committee said that the boycott is illegal but also said they don’t know if there’s really a law against it.

    Republicans: Corporations should have freedom of expression (Citizens United)!

    Also Republicans: Corporations shouldn’t be able to choose what platforms to run ads on!

  • NutWrench@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    You literally told your advertisers to go fark themselves, Elmo. Several times. This is what consequences look like.

  • Bahnd Rollard@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    My head-cannon from the lawyers going something like this.

    “Thank you Mr. Musk for the lawsuit, we had a lot of fun reading it. Especially the parts you drew (I liked the blue dinosauar). Before we begin, we would like to let you know the legal fees for this case are coming directly from the portion of the advertising budget we allocated to the website formerly known as Twitter”

    Probably more entertaining than the actual cases.