In new suit, Musk's X accuses advertisers of boycotting platform after Twitter takeover

[LetMyPeopleVote]

The new lawsuit filed by Elon Musk’s social media platform is controversial for a variety of reasons — including the court in which it was filed.

Link to tweet

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/new-suit-musks-x-accuses-advertisers-boycotting-platform-twitter-takeo-rcna165550

Elon Musk’s social media platform filed a curious federal lawsuit yesterday, targeting a group of advertisers for allegedly organizing a boycott of the company formerly known as Twitter. NBC News reported:

The company formerly known as Twitter filed the lawsuit Tuesday in a federal court in Texas against the World Federation of Advertisers and member companies Unilever, Mars, CVS Health and Orsted. It accused the advertising group’s initiative, called the Global Alliance for Responsible Media, of helping to coordinate a pause in advertising after Musk bought Twitter for $44 billion in late 2022 and overhauled its staff and policies.

As my MSNBC colleague Ja’han Jones noted, the conspiratorial billionaire also declared “war” against a coalition of advertisers known as the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM).....

But as the case advances, there was one detail in the reporting that deserves a closer look. Reuters noted, “The case was filed in the Northern District of Texas and assigned to U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor.”.....

The New York Times noted soon after that Republicans had a habit of bringing their cases to this specific district court because of their confidence that O’Connor would give them everything they wanted: “He ruled for Texas in 2015 when it challenged an Obama administration measure extending family leave benefits to married same-sex couples. ... He also ruled for Texas in 2016, blocking the Obama administration from enforcing guidelines expanding restroom access for transgender students.”.....

It’s against this backdrop that the lawyers for Musk’s platform filed their new case in a specific Texas district where they knew the case would almost certainly be assigned to O’Connor.

The tactic goes by different names. I’ve seen it referred to as “forum shopping,” “judge shopping,” “venue shopping,” and “court shopping,” but the phrases all mean the same thing: Instead of simply taking one’s chances in the judiciary, many litigants effectively try to hand-pick ideologically aligned jurists, filing their cases in specific districts in the hopes of guaranteeing success before the process even begins in earnest.

I don’t know for certain whether X’s legal team tried to game the system, but it seems like quite a coincidence that they took their case to a judge who’s notorious for telling the right what it wants to hear.

[bullimiami]

1. He should sue himself for shitting up the platform.

[ck4829]

2. Billionaires are not entitled to our money

[magicarpet]

3. Isn't that the magic hand of a free market place ?

Pound sand Nazi.

[keithbvadu2]

4. OK! we'll advertise on X... if you give 80% discount.

Musk should appreciate that. He is a hard bargainer.

[Zambero]

5. Musk keeps dropping turds into his media punch bowl

And wonders why advertisers are staying away. When a heretofore neutral platform is highly politicized by a high-profile individual, there are bound to be repercussions. Apparently, even a "genius" fails to get the connection. And then there's Tesla...

[Initech]

6. Because nobody wants to be associated with Nazis, white supremacists, and fuckheads like libsoftiktok.

These people are nobody's friends, the advertisers are right to run away.

[ProudMNDemocrat]

7. So Elon is MAD for advertisers leaving his rag of a platform?

Good for them. Elon will LOSE this suit. The man must get off losing money.

[CincyDem]

8. I'm always confused by this kind of bullshit legal crap...

…is there some constitutional obligation for advertisers to spend money on X ? Or any other platform for that matter.

Assume I’m a guy who owns billboards and have a deal with Huggies for them to buy advertising space. If I decide to move all my billboards to the Red Light District in Amsterdam and Huggies decides that’s no longer consistent with their target audience or corporate philosophy…I get to sue if they don’t re-up their contract ???

Doesn’t sound very pro business to me…but what do I know.

[OAITW r.2.0]

16. Sure seems like a frivolous lawsuit.

It's like he asking the Courts to force advertisers to spend money on his platform. Hope it gets dismissed the moment it is submitted.

[Lunabell]

9. Muskyboy told advertisers to go fuck themselves.

This ought to be a slam dunk loser for him if there is really a non-partial judge.

[TlalocW]

10. How are boycotts illegal?

I don't get how he can sue over that

[haele]

18. It's not even boycotts. Advertisers have targeted groups of customers.

And they know what their customers habits and interests are.
Advertisers don't have to waste their money in venues where their customer base isn't.
That's like advertising Makers Mark at a Children's Television Workshop fundraiser or Beech-Nut Baby meals at a Indy Adult Film festival.
I was going to say Pampers at Bohemian Grove, but there might be enough who are into that to make it worth while.
You might attract one or two customers. Still, not enough to spend the money.
And not many big companies want to be linked to the obnoxiously loud 20% of the population who are bullies and Nazis; I suspect they'd rather market to the 60 -70% who avoid the bullies and Nazis because mean or bat shit just doesn't make normal people feel comfortable.

Haele

[HAB911]

11. Well, this should bring them around to his point of view

[Celerity]

12. Whinge on, shitlord. A pox on everything Musk.

[Wicked Blue]

17. Eelon Mush

[NotASurfer]

13. Prepare for the case of Elon vs Everybody

After all, if it's not fair that advertisers don't pony up, then it's not fair that everybody doesn't pony up, because whiny why-do-you-avoid-my-brilliance-in-my-own-opinion reasons

[Bev54]

14. They should countersue for irresponsible media.

[Bettie]

15. Is it now illegal for

companies to choose where they advertize?

[samsingh]

19. musk is a scary man

i guess budweisher can sue their customers too, and the Dixie Chicks should sue radio statements that boycotted them, and so on.

[samsingh]

20. so companies should sue if you don't buy from them?

[Freethinker65]

21. How can even a partisan conservative TX asshole rule a private corporation is entitled to advertisers?

Musk is entitled to control X how he wants to (I quit Twitter a month or so because of Musk as was my right). If Musk's policy decisions on X cause advertisers to flee, perhaps Musk needs to re-evaluate the policy changes and business model of X or just live with the consequences.

[struggle4progress]

22. "Woke Antifa Inc is illegally boycotting our delicious bullshit and ground glass sandwiches!

So we are suing to make them eat at our cafe!"

[John Farmer]

23. How can you sue somebody for not doing something which is their right not to do?

[LetMyPeopleVote]

24. For this thread

[ck4829]

25. Ha

[LetMyPeopleVote]

26. The Daily Show pokes fun at the 'CEO' of X, Linda Yaccarino

Link to tweet

[kimbutgar]

27. Companies have the right to decide what media they are going to advertise on

Sorry muskrat you’re just a whiny cry baby who is losing major money now on Twitter. I hope Twitter is destroyed and you lose billions.

[FM123]

28. Yep. He went and just sued a nonprofit advertising group out of existence!

The end of GARM could raise concerns for other media watchdogs, though a judge has sided with a nonprofit in a similar suit. X also sued the Center for Countering Digital Hate, alleging the nonprofit group violated its terms of service when it studied, and then wrote about, hate speech on the platform and blamed it for driving away advertisers. (A federal judge tossed the suit in March, blasting it as an attempt to punish CCDH for protected speech.) X also sued the progressive watchdog group Media Matters over its analysis highlighting antisemitic and pro-Nazi content on X — a report that appeared to play a significant role in a massive and damaging brand revolt late last year. The case is set to go to trial next year.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100219314524

[Oneironaut]

29. These are the same losers who boycotted Bud Light.

Ofc they know that and are insincere.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

30. Texas federal judge recuses himself from Musk anti-trust lawsuit

Musk engaged in some serious and in my opinion unethical forum shopping. Luckily, the press exposed the fact that this judge owns Tesla stock and the judge just recuse himself

Link to tweet

Here is the NPR article where the judge's Tesla stock ownership was exposed
https://www.npr.org/2024/08/09/g-s1-16087/elon-musk-lawsuits-texas-same-judge-hears-them-tesla-stock

Billionaire Elon Musk seems to have found a new favorite federal judge: Reed O’Connor in Fort Worth, Texas.

Musk’s social media company X has filed two major lawsuits against groups he sees as antagonists, and O’Connor is presiding over both of them, even though none of the parties is based in Texas.

So far, O’Connor has delivered stunningly pro-Musk decisions, which have gained widespread attention.

What has garnered less attention: O’Connor’s investment in Tesla, between “$15,001 and $50,000” of Tesla stock, according to his most recent publicly available financial disclosure filing......

Like with the Media Matters case, neither X, which is listed in the suits as a Nevada corporation, nor any of the defendants are based in Texas.

But Musk’s legal team justified filing the Media Matters case in Texas by saying the nonprofit “routinely contacts” Texans asking them to subscribe to the group’s content and that, in the second case, the advertisers have a “substantial volume of business” in Texas.

Forum shopping accusations have recently come under scrutiny in the northern district of Texas, in part because the district is distinct.

In most parts of the country, lawsuits are randomly assigned to judges. But in northern Texas, judges take on suits based on which division of the district they are filed in. That can allow parties to almost cherry-pick a judge, according to Ahearn with the Brennan Center for Justice.

Public pressure worked here and this judge has recused himself

[LetMyPeopleVote]

31. Judge with Tesla stock recuses from Elon Musk's X lawsuit

Musk engaged in some very questionable and in my opinion unethical forum shopping to get this this judge. I am glad that NPR exposed this conflict and that this judge recused himself

Link to tweet

https://www.rawstory.com/elon-musk-judge-recuses/

A judge who owns stock in Tesla has recused himself from a lawsuit involving Elon Musk's social media site X, court documents show.

As an NPR report recently revealed, U.S. Federal Court Judge Reed O’Connor has been overseeing a number of lawsuits involving Musk and ruling in his favor.

The lawsuit in question revolves around Musk's efforts to sue liberal media watchdog Media Matters for allegedly damaging X's reputation with advertisers.

Media Matters documented how some corporate ads on X were showing up alongside racist posts made by neo-Nazi, which Musk alleges has destroyed the company's advertising base. Musk's lawsuit has already damaged the organization, with a number of layoffs announced in May.

After uproar and nationwide reports about Judge O'Connor, on Tuesday the judge decided to recuse himself from the Musk case. It has now been passed onto Judge James Kinkeade, a George W. Bush appointee.