Rumble, the social media platform known for its free speech stance, has teamed up with Elon Musk’s X (formerly known as Twitter) in a lawsuit against the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM). The companies accuse the global advertising consortium of violating antitrust laws by unfairly boycotting certain platforms, including their own.
The lawsuit, which was revealed during an appearance by Rumble CEO and founder Chris Pavlovski on Fox Business Network’s “The Big Money Show,” alleges that GARM and its parent organization, the World Federation of Advertisers (WFA), have misused brand safety standards to marginalize certain voices and platforms. According to Pavlovski, this misuse has led to what he describes as an illegal monopoly over the advertising market.
Per Fox Business, Pavlovski argued that the WFA, through GARM, has effectively monopolized the market by controlling the ad budgets of major companies. This, he claims, allows them to discriminate against platforms like Rumble and X, by excluding them from advertising opportunities if the content does not align with their brand safety standards. “Once you have a huge consortium that creates a monopoly across all the big ad budgets that dictate that brand safety standard, they then can now discriminate against certain voices on other platforms,” Pavlovski explained.
Related: Elon Musk’s X Files Antitrust Suit Against Global Advertising Alliance
He further elaborated that this practice drives up advertising rates because advertisers are forced to operate within a limited market, ultimately harming not just the platforms like Rumble and X, but also the advertisers themselves, shareholders, and even the consumers. “This harms the advertisers, the shareholders, it creates higher fees for the agencies and also harms Rumble creators, and Rumble viewers and the Rumble platform,” Pavlovski emphasized.
Pavlovski also cited the Sherman Act, a key federal antitrust law, asserting that GARM’s actions violate this legislation. The Sherman Act prohibits agreements that restrain trade or create monopolies, and Pavlovski believes GARM’s conduct falls squarely within these illegal activities. “When you have a monopoly and you create a monopoly by assembling all this power and control to dictate a certain standard of how you’re going to spend that money, that’s not a free market. The Sherman Act does not allow that. So that’s illegal,” he stated.
Source: Fox Business
Featured News
Google’s Bid to End EU Antitrust Case with AdX Sale Rejected by Publishers
Sep 18, 2024 by
CPI
Google Challenges £7 Billion UK Lawsuit, Seeks Case Dismissal Over Alleged Market Abuse
Sep 18, 2024 by
CPI
GameStop CEO Ryan Cohen Fined Nearly $1M for Antitrust Violation in Wells Fargo Deal
Sep 18, 2024 by
CPI
French Regulator Approves FDJ’s Kindred €2.45B Acquisition with Conditions
Sep 18, 2024 by
CPI
UK Competition Authority Targets Greenwashing with New Fashion Compliance Rules
Sep 18, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Canada & Mexico
Sep 3, 2024 by
CPI
Competitive Convergence: Mexico’s 30-Year Quest for Antitrust Parity with its Northern Neighbor
Sep 3, 2024 by
Francisco Javier Núñez Melgoza
Competition and Digital Markets in North America: A Comparative Study of Antitrust Investigations in Mexico and the United States
Sep 3, 2024 by
Julio Garcia
Recent Antitrust Development in Mexico: COFECE’s Preliminary Report on Amazon and Mercado Libre
Sep 3, 2024 by
Alejandra Palacios Prieto
The Cost of Making COFECE Disappear
Sep 3, 2024 by
Mateo Fernández