After
Elon
Musk
transformed
Twitter
into
a
racial
slur
generator
and
users
fled
en
masse,
advertisers
understandably
scaled
back
their
ad
spend.
Apparently
brands
don’t
like
it
when
MAGAKing6969’s
Great
Replacement
Theory
post
shows
up
next
to
a
company’s
“Speaking
of
replacement…
is
it
time
to
replace
your
mobile
carrier?”
ad.
The
advertising
exodus
put
the
mogul
in
a
bind
as
he
scrambled
to
make
good
on
the
investment
he’d
accidentally
made
because
he’s
too
stupid
to
figure
out
how
Delaware
law
works.
Early
efforts
to
stem
the
tide
flopped
when
Media
Matters
decided
to
test
the
protections
the
newly
branded
X
team
promised
advertisers
from
having
their
brands
appear
next
to
racist
content
and…
it
turns
out
they
didn’t
stop
the
problem.
Musk
trashed
the
Media
Matters
test
as
manufactured
since
it
would
only
bypass
X’s
promised
protections
if
the
feed
was
specifically
curated
for
a
comically
racist
user,
overlooking
that
this
describes
a
solid
20
percent
of
X
these
days.
So
Elon
sued
Media
Matters.
And
a
bunch
of
advertisers.
Just
flinging
legal
gibberish
all
over
the
docket
(and
social
media)
about
how
it’s
super-duper-unlegal
antitrust
or
criminal
RICO
for
corporations
to
not
give
him
money.
His
credible
lawyers
wouldn’t
touch
this
nonsense,
so
he
turned
to
Harmeet
Dhillon,
who
now
heads
up
the
increasingly
hollow
DOJ
Civil
Rights
Division.
If
companies
agreed
to
buy
ads
of
dubious
utility
from
him,
they
could
avoid
the
hassle
of
legal
action.
And,
unfortunately
for
the
sanctity
of
law,
this
strategy
proved
reasonably
successful.
The
Wall
Street
Journal
has
a
detailed
report
based
on
interviews
with
over
two
dozen
sources
covering
concessions
from
the
likes
of
Unilever
and
Verizon
to
avoid
getting
dragged
into
court.
While
X
reportedly
seeks
commitments
from
companies
to
spend
at
least
as
much
as
they
did
pre-Musk
—
and
in
some
cases
double
—
the
companies
by
and
large
are
coming
back
with
lower
spend.
The
company
is
on
track
to
have
about
half
the
revenue
it
once
boasted.
Some
antitrust
experts
said
X
faces
a
high
bar
to
prove
its
claims.
“It
would
be
an
antitrust
violation
if
the
advertisers
got
together
and
said,
‘Let’s
boycott
X
to
get
lower
ad
rates,’”
said
Cardozo
Law
School
Professor
Sam
Weinstein,
a
former
Justice
Department
antitrust
lawyer.
But
if
advertisers
were
motivated
by
a
desire
not
to
be
associated
with
the
kind
of
speech
X
was
allowing,
he
said,
“that’s
unlikely
to
be
an
antitrust
violation.”
The
frivolous
lawsuits
aren’t
really
news,
but
the
WSJ
report
also
noted
that
Musk’s
game
has
leveled
up:
On
May
20,
the
Federal
Trade
Commission
sent
Media
Matters
a
civil
investigative
demand,
signaling
that
the
agency
is
investigating
the
entity.
The
document,
which
was
reviewed
by
the
Journal,
requests
information
from
the
group,
including:
“all
documents
that
Media
Matters
either
produced
or
received
in
discovery
in
any
litigation
between
Media
Matters
and
X
Corp.
related
to
advertiser
boycotts
since
2023.”The
agency
is
investigating
whether
ad
and
advocacy
groups
violated
antitrust
laws
by
coordinating
boycotts
of
certain
sites,
including
X.
On
Monday,
the
FTC
sent
requests
for
information
to
ad
companies
including
Omnicom,
WPP,
Publicis
and
Interpublic.
The
FTC,
currently
boasting
zero
of
the
ostensibly
required
Democratic
commissioners,
is
lending
an
official
veneer
to
the
bonkers
argument
that
it’s
an
antitrust
violation
to
publicize
that
a
company
isn’t
delivering
on
a
promise.
That
companies
acted,
in
part,
upon
the
Media
Matters
finding
doesn’t
convert
this
into
any
sort
of
antitrust
conspiracy.
It’s
as
though
X
reached
the
point
of
diminishing
returns
on
the
lawsuits
and
decided
leveraging
the
government
—
who
doesn’t
have
to
drag
a
loser
of
a
complaint
past
a
motion
to
dismiss
to
get
some
quasi-discovery
via
demand
letters
—
against
Media
Matters
might
dig
up
something
to
turn
the
screws
on
more
advertisers.
Though
the
FTC
isn’t
the
only
government
lever
that
Musk
brings
to
the
party:
In
December,
during
discussions
with
advertising
conglomerate
Interpublic
Group
about
increasing
spending,
X
hinted
that
its
recently
announced
$13
billion
deal
to
merge
with
rival
Omnicom
Group could
face
trouble
from
the
Trump
administration,
The
Wall
Street
Journal
has
reported.
IPG
subsequently
signed
a
new
annual
deal
with
X
for
potential
client
spending.
This
tracks
the
ongoing
CBS
News
drama,
where
Paramount’s
desire
to
close
deals
without
undue
administration
meddling
has
put
60
Minutes
under
the
prospect
of
corporate
censorship.
Musk’s
infiltration
of
the
executive
branch
—
which
may
be
on
again?
—
elevates
his
already
troubling
lawfare
strategy
to
new
heights.
Moreover,
if
he
finds
success
in
leveraging
executive
threats
against
boycotts,
it
opens
a
new
vector
for
other
companies
to
override
market
decisions
through
legal
extortion.
Or
maybe
he’ll
point
out
that
Donald
Trump
partied
with
Epstein
again
and
the
FTC
will
drop
the
case.
Place
your
bets!
X’s
Sales
Pitch:
Give
Us
Your
Ad
Business
or
We’ll
Sue
[Wall
Street
Journal]
Earlier:
Elon
Musk
Says
Advertisers
Are
Doing
The
RICO
If
They
Don’t
Give
Him
Money
Elon
Musk’s
‘It’s
Unlegal
For
Advertisers
Not
To
Give
Me
Money’
Lawsuit
Drives
Defendant
Out
Of
Business
Elon
Musk’s
‘Thermonuclear
Lawsuit’
Is
Here
And
It’s…
Positively
Tepid.
Joe
Patrice is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law
and
co-host
of
Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
Feel
free
to email
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments.
Follow
him
on Twitter or
Bluesky
if
you’re
interested
in
law,
politics,
and
a
healthy
dose
of
college
sports
news.
Joe
also
serves
as
a
Managing
Director
at
RPN
Executive
Search.