Month: August 2024

X Corp has initiated a lawsuit against the World Federation of Advertisers and several global companies including Unilever, Mars, CVS Health, and Ørsted A/S. The complaint, filed in the Northern District of Texas, accuses them of forming an advertising cartel that allegedly colluded to withhold advertising dollars from X Corp’s social media platform to enforce compliance with certain brand safety standards.

We obtained a copy of the complaint for you here.

According to the legal documents, this group, under the umbrella of the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM), orchestrated a boycott impacting the revenue streams of X significantly, following its acquisition of Twitter. The collective action allegedly aimed at maintaining stringent content moderation standards, a move X Corp argues went beyond competitive or consumer interest to serve the cartel’s shared economic goals.

“The boycott and its effects continue to this day,” states the complaint, detailing how these actions have allegedly stifled competition and innovation in social media advertising. The complaint highlights internal communications within GARM celebrating the economic damage inflicted on X, which they claim fell “80% below revenue forecasts” due to the boycott.

A focal point of the lawsuit is the alleged breach of the Sherman Act, asserting that the defendant’s actions constitute an unlawful restraint of trade. “In a competitive market, each social media platform would set its brand safety standards…but collective action among competing advertisers to dictate brand safety standards shortcuts the competitive process,” the lawsuit contends.

Further exacerbating the issue, the House Judiciary Committee has taken an interest, with their investigation suggesting that the conduct of WFA and GARM “threatens fundamental American freedoms” and could be “likely illegal under the antitrust laws.”

X Corp seeks not only compensatory damages but also injunctive relief to prevent future boycotts and ensure a fair competitive environment.

Rumble has also joined forces with X in filing a comprehensive antitrust lawsuit against the key players in the advertising industry.

We obtained a copy of the complaint for you here.

GARM, with its cartel-like behavior, Rumble asserts, has orchestrated a boycott against it and similar platforms, unfairly cutting them off from vital advertising revenue streams.

“The brand safety standards set by advertisers and their ad agencies should succeed or fail in the marketplace on their own merits and not through the coercive exercise of market power,” Rumble’s complaint reads. “All of this illegal conduct is done at the expense of platforms, content creators, and their users, as well as the agencies’ own advertiser clients who pay more for ads as a result of their collusion.”

The lawsuit elaborates on the detrimental impact of this alleged collusion, stressing that it not only harms digital platforms and content creators by strangling their primary revenue sources but also inflates advertising costs. Consequently, this leads to higher expenses for the agencies’ own clients, spiraling into a broader negative impact on the digital advertising ecosystem.

Adding a layer of gravity to their claims, both Rumble and X highlight ongoing investigations by the US House Judiciary Committee, which has expressed concerns that GARM’s actions might violate antitrust laws and impinge on fundamental American freedoms. With this legal action, Rumble seeks not only financial redress but also a judicial affirmation that the defendants’ actions are illegal, alongside a permanent injunction to halt these practices, signaling a critical juncture in the fight for fairness in digital advertising practices.

The post X, Rumble File Lawsuit Against Pro-Demonetization Advertiser Cartel appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

Popular political commentator Steven Crowder has announced that his YouTube channel has been “effectively” banned until the November election, and is urging his audience to watch his shows on Rumble instead.

Last Friday, the channel received strikes on eight videos, including one from 2023. A screenshot of Google’s notices shows that eight of the videos received strikes for “harassment and cyberbullying” and one for “hate speech.”

Judging by the titles and descriptions, the videos deal with the upcoming election and are critical of the Biden-Harris administration – particularly of the latter’s past and present policies and conduct – as well as of mainstream media, and Google itself.

The strikes were issued on August 2 and will expire on October 31 – 5 days before election day.

According to Crowder, all but one of the videos were livestreams published since Biden had to withdraw from the presidential race, making Kamala Harris the Democrats’ candidate.

Crowder sees this as the beginning of the giant’s “election policy” where it is clearly taking sides, and not only that, but suppressing “any and all opposition to their narrative.”

He also revealed that his channel has reached out to YouTube in the hope of getting some answers. In the meanwhile, he accused Google of interfering in the election through censorship and withholding information that it doesn’t want to be easily available to users.

This is tantamount to Big Tech, possibly except for X, “doing their part” to sway, or as Crowder put it, “rig” the election.

He announced that on election night, his show will be covering the ballot by using the same news agency sources as legacy media, but also their own analysts in order to provide an alternative to the way elections are covered by those outlets often accused of open bias.

According to Crowder, this project has been in the works for months, and YouTube is aware of it – and not happy about it. So much so, that he believes the giant video platform will make sure it isn’t discoverable.

For that reason, Crowder called on his viewers to follow the show on Rumble.

The post Steven Crowder Promotes Rumble Following YouTube Censorship appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

AppCensorship, a project that monitors and reports about censorship on major app stores, is warning that Google’s decision to start removing what it considers low-quality apps could lead to consequences other than “improving quality and user experience.”

An article on the project’s site notes that while some users see Google’s move as a positive and justified step, others see the potential for censorship “baked in” the decision.

The second point of view is all the more important given the amount of apps that Google removes from the Play Store over a year. The giant’s newest transparency report cites the number as 2.28 million – 59% more compared to the 1.43 million in the previous period.

But AppCensorship writes that the transparency report itself – and large media outlets reporting about it – all focus on the numbers without engaging in what the project calls a complete picture that would include discussion around (removal) policy, analysis, and critical examination.

Otherwise, the article warns, we may be looking at the media “lending them (app removal statistics) a degree of credibility disconnected from substantive scrutiny.”

As far as Google is concerned, the activity around the Play Store is proof that it is improving security, but also the app review process, and incorporating “advanced machine learning.”

On the flip side are fears that, as the article put it, Google may be using “its influence and high market share to dictate the global app environment.”

Just like major media companies, Google is barely scratching the surface in its transparency reports. The numbers are there, but it isn’t clear what’s driving the huge rise in app removals in such a short period of time – the desire to increase security, or perhaps, “a heightened stringency in its own enforcement protocols” – AppCensorship wonders.

The transparency reports also don’t delve deep into what kind of apps get removed, with the media parroting Google by stating they are “malicious” or “privacy violating” and leaving it at that.

In this setup – much as it does when censoring content on its massive platforms – Google is able to remove apps without providing detailed explanations or justification to the public.

And this is where concerns that the policy of removal of huge numbers of apps could be another avenue to censor.

According to AppCensorship, the other part of the app store duopoly, Apple, is no better when it comes to transparency – specifically in its transparency reports.

The post Google’s App “Quality” Crackdown Raises Censorship Concerns appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

The post Google’s Monopoly Exposed: How the Sherman Act Took Down a Giant appeared first on Reclaim The Net.