A US judge has dismissed a lawsuit by Elon Musk’s X, which accused a group of advertisers and major companies of illegally boycotting his platform, according to the BBC. The case. Which was filed by X Corp. The parent company of the social media platform, alleged that firms including Unilever, Mars, and Orsted, along with the World Federation of Advertisers (WFA), had conspired to deprive the company of billions of dollars in advertising revenue.

Legal Challenge Based on Antitrust Claims

X Corp filed the lawsuit in a Texas court in 2024, following a significant drop in advertising revenue after Elon Musk acquired Twitter in 2022. The lawsuit claimed that the group of advertisers had acted against their own economic self-interest by conspiring against the platform, violating US antitrust laws designed to ensure fair competition between companies.

According to the lawsuit. The accused firms had allegedly followed safety standards set out by a WFA initiative called the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (Garm). Garm’s stated aim is to help the industry address the challenge of illegal or harmful content on digital media platforms and its monetisation via advertising. X Corp argued that these standards were used to unfairly withhold spending from its platform.

The lawsuit was part of a broader strategy by Musk, who had previously tweeted, “We tried being nice for 2 years and got nothing but empty words. Now, it is war.” This statement reflected Musk’s frustration with what he described as the lack of tangible support from advertisers and the broader advertising industry after his acquisition of Twitter.

Judge Dismisses Case, Citing Lack of Evidence

US District Judge Jane Boyle ruled that X Corp had failed to demonstrate that it had suffered any harm under federal competition laws. In her ruling. Boyle stated that the alleged conspiracy did not constitute a valid antitrust claim. She wrote in an opinion filed alongside her judgment that Garm “did not buy advertising space from X to sell to advertisers nor did it, in such an arrangement, tell X not to sell directly to Garm’s customers.”

Boyle concluded that “the very nature of the alleged conspiracy does not state an antitrust claim, and the court therefore has no qualm dismissing with prejudice.” This means the case cannot be refiled in the same court, effectively ending the legal challenge from X Corp.

The defendants. Including CVS. Unilever, Mars, and Orsted, had denied any wrongdoing and urged Judge Boyle to dismiss the lawsuit. They argued that they had acted independently when making business decisions about when and where to spend advertising money and that X had failed to show otherwise.

Significant Drop in Advertising Revenue

X Corp’s lawsuit came after a sharp decline in advertising revenue following Musk’s acquisition of Twitter in 2022; Within a year of the acquisition, advertising revenue had fallen by more than half as some firms paused or reduced their promotions on the platform. This decline was attributed to Musk’s sweeping changes to the platform, including the reinstatement of controversial figures and the lifting of certain content restrictions.

The drop in advertising revenue had a tangible impact on the company’s operations. According to reports. X Corp had filed the lawsuit in response to what it described as a coordinated effort by major advertisers to avoid the platform, citing concerns over the spread of harmful and illegal content.

However, Judge Boyle’s ruling suggests that X Corp’s claims were not supported by sufficient evidence to prove an antitrust violation. The judge’s decision highlights the difficulty of proving such claims in the absence of clear evidence of collusion or anti-competitive behavior.

Despite the dismissal of the lawsuit, the implications of the case could have lasting effects on the relationship between social media platforms and advertisers. The ruling may influence how similar disputes are handled in the future and could set a precedent for other platforms facing similar challenges from the advertising industry.

The BBC has approached X for comment, but as of now, no official statement has been released. The case highlights the ongoing tensions between social media companies and the advertising industry, particularly in the wake of significant changes to content policies and platform governance.

The ruling by Judge Boyle may also signal a broader trend in US courts, where antitrust claims are being scrutinized more closely, and plaintiffs must provide effective evidence to support their allegations. This could lead to more cautious approaches by companies seeking to challenge alleged anti-competitive practices.