'I order you, in the name of the free markets of both ideas and products, to give money to this specific person'
Our very legitimate SCOTUS
this post was submitted on 02 Feb 2025
182 points (97.9% liked)
News
24269 readers
4432 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
And what makes an advertising boycott legally actionable? "We want less regulation. "
"No!!! You can't avoid my shithole platform. "
Free speech means they don’t have to advertise there.
Look who's talking, mofo... The guy did things that screwed over advertising on the late Twitter.
Nestlé accused of having a modicum of an ethical backbone. Interesting.
Fucking hell, I'm supporting Nestle on a situation?
I want off this fucking roller coaster.
It's a Nazi clown show. I'm not rooting for either.
Well, the clown told them to release the dams, which Nestle makes money from, probably not to keen on that.
Who's running Tesla? Doesn't seem like he's spending a lot of time with it lately.
As a result, quality will likely go up.
I hear that's why SpaceX runs well. They keep Elon away from all the important stuff.
Isn't this extortion? Since when are companies obliged to advertise on any platform?
Since Elon Musk became president.
Careful, you might get sued for not advertising on X. I’m presently planning to buy ads confirming that I have nothing to sell. You know, for “protection.”
Shut up, it’s sarcasm, leave me alone.
Good thing you said sarcasm. Otherwise I'd have to take out an x campaign, in all caps, using your sorry post as an example of a conservative oligarch supporting troll.
I hate that the world has become so stupid that I have to say it. Used to be a person could say something absurd and it was obvious that they were joking.
Only now, they become president and actually do the dumb things they post. I feel ya, buddy.
I think the crux of it is they are claiming collusion, in an anti-trust way. But I haven't heard the lawyers claim that once. Not once.
I assumed he’s trying to get those settlement payout bribes that trump is cashing in on
I commented on it below. There are no specifics in the article, but from the phrasing "collective action among competing", my guess is that this is probably an antitrust claim. That is, there's no obligation to buy service from a given company, but there may be an obligation for competitors to not collude in making buy/not-buy decisions from a supplier.
But if my memory is at all correct, they kinda all chose to leave/scale-back because of all the Nazi/hate speech "conservative" talk on Twitter. He then went full Karen and told them to F'off he didn't want/need them anyway.
I think this is just a way to try and get free money now that he has bought an administration with a DoJ for hire. It's time for him to try and get a return on that investment.
Your memory is all correct.
And I'm no lawyer, but I'm guessing him telling them to fuck off is not going to help his court case.
Musk will do anything to get advertisers back, except remove the nazi content from his platform.
Why would he remove the content he bought the platform to promote?
But I thought he told them to go fuck themselves? I wonder why that didn’t work.
Lonnie, you big stupid baby, at least you looked cool to your blathering legion of mouth-breathing fans.
What is the supposed legal basis of this?
Collusion among all the big players in an industry, in order to exclude other players from succeeding in that industry is indeed anti-competitive, and potentially illegal. There's potential merit here in businesses coordinating with each other on who to blacklist withing the industry, which is why lawyers were willing to take on the case.
Ultimately, it's a question for a judge whether they're doing this for the purpose of suppressing competition, somehow, or whether they're doing it for valid business reasons (like, say, avoiding a company with a history of not paying its bills, or avoiding a company with a history of sabotaging business relationships, or avoiding a company that their own customers actively hate, and would lose them business).
Of course, with the courts the way they are these days, I'm not holding my breath for the obviously-sensible ruling.
The problem with that is companies who advertise with X and X themselves are not in the same industry. That’s like saying if I had a hardware store who advertises with a newspaper, that means my hardware store is in the same business as the newspaper. What?
As far as “why lawyers were willing to take on the case” I’d guess it’s because they’re going to rake in huge fees regardless of the outcome.
Something about a conspiracy theory that they are colluding against Obergruppenführer Musk.
Musk is a petulant child who is running the government now, and will abuse it to whatever ends he desires
This is honestly the most likely reason.
Because legally speaking X has an uphill battle to try and prove collusion. Brands are not competitors, they’re buyers. Outside of some outstanding finding that GARM and co. colluded with the likes of Facebook and Snapchat for kick backs or rate reductions, X doesn’t have a win here.
The thing Poppa X does have is lots of money. So far that’s worked a little, the WFA has shut down GARM citing that the legal battle has “drained its resources and finances.” But the WFA and some of the brands they represent are still named (Unilever has settled - never heard of them) - do they have the cash to push back? WFA doesn’t, they’re a non-profit. The rest? Not sure.
I hope he steps on some LEGO.
I hope a Lego gets permanently stuck in each of his shoes. at an angle. fuck it make it two bricks per shoe. I'll pay. make it three.
Advertising on a Nazi platform is bad for business.
A boycott is organised, you don't need to organise rational self interest.
I want so bad for the judge to see this shit on their docket and immediately throw the book at Elon. Figuratively. And literally.
(Actually, let him go ahead and sue Nestlé; they deserve it for other reasons)
Fuck off you fucking snowflake fuck. Fuck.
Musk wants in on the cascade of ~~bribes~~ settlements that Trump has been collecting.
"But collective action among competing advertisers to dictate brand safety standards to be applied by social media platforms shortcuts the competitive process and allows the collective views of a group of advertisers with market power to override the interests of consumer," the complaint said.
Hmm.
The article doesn't give the specifics, but it sounds like the claim is some kind of antitrust thing. Like, advertisements are something that companies purchase. If many companies engage in some kind of collusion to limit the price at which they will buy something or quantity that they buy, I suppose that that might potentially violate antitrust law -- you're basically forming a buyer's cartel. I don't recall ever hearing of advertisements being the target of this, though. Usually it's an input specifically to the good in question. And I don't know for sure to what degree buyer's cartels are restricted by antitrust law in the US.
kagis
A. Buyer Cartels
A cartel is a group of competitors who have agreed to limit or eliminate their competition in some economically relevant dimension. The objective of such a combination is to create, allocate, and exploit power in the market. While conventional monopsony theory posits primarily exploitive explanations, i.e. collusive, or unilateral conduct to reduce input prices, buyer cartels can also use their collective power to exclude or restrain their competitors in the markets in which they buy goods or otherwise regulate the nonprice dimensions of the supply market as a means of entrenching their own dominance in both upstream and downstream markets.5 A buyer cartel eliminates competition for input purchases. Buyers may collude even though they sell in highly competitive markets where seller cartelization is unlikely. Such buyer collusion may eventually reduce the total output in the market. A significant reduction in output can affect the downstream market by reducing the volume of the output produced, resulting in higher prices for the remaining production.
B. Legitimate Buying Groups
A buying group is a set of potentially competing buyers that pool their purchase orders and jointly or through an agent negotiate for the inputs they seek. The fundamental distinction between a legitimate buying group and a cartel is that a buying group acts to gain the efficiencies of a joint enterprise. The buyer-participants have integrated some of their input acquisition function by participating in the buying group. Efficiencies can result from longer production runs, reductions in transaction costs, or lower costs per unit of quality control, and can include protection against defective or dangerous products, preferred status with shipping services based on high volume, and improved ability to develop new products. In addition, buying cooperative can bargain for better prices. A buyer seeking a large volume is likely to make a more extensive search of the market for suppliers and generate a more active bidding process as a result. Therefore, in a market where competition is imperfect but workable, buyers can gain a price advantage by employing more sophisticated and effective searches for the inputs they need.
C. Distinguishing Buying Groups from Cartels
There are no fixed parameters for a buying group. A legitimate buying group involves some integration of activities, but it is limited to facilitating the functioning of the enterprise. One way to distinguish a buying group from a buyer cartel is to focus on its functional goals. If the participants make an investment in, and consolidate, coordinate, and administer some aspects of their buying activity, then they are prima facie a buying group. Conversely, if the group exists only to agree on how the parties will conduct their own purchases, it is prima facie a cartel.
Well, at least based on that criteria -- which is from an article on buyer's cartels, not quoting antitrust law -- that sounds like a coordinated advertising boycott by companies might well be illegal in US law, that Twitter might have a case.
That being said, even if it's illegal as it stands, I can't help but think that it might also be possible to structure something very similar to that in a way that is legal. For example, suppose that multiple companies go to an entity providing brand management consulting, and that entity says to a number of companies who are its clients "advertising on Twitter may be a bad idea for your brand". Those companies don't have a binding obligation to follow that advice, but do follow it. I can't imagine that that would be illegal. I mean, I can imagine that maybe Twitter might win this lawsuit, but not really do much to change what's happening in terms of purchasing of advertising.
I'll also add that just on the grounds that companies who are customers of a supplier are unlikely to be very happy with that supplier if it sues them, I'd guess that they're likely to find a way not to do business with that supplier in the future, regardless of the route they take.