A PYMNTS Company

US Judge Dismisses X Lawsuit Alleging Advertising Boycott

By  |  March 26, 2026

A US federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit brought by Elon Musk’s company X Corp, which accused a coalition of major advertisers and industry groups of coordinating an illegal boycott of the social media platform, according to the Verge.

    Get the Full Story

    Complete the form to unlock this article and enjoy unlimited free access to all PYMNTS content — no additional logins required.

    yesSubscribe to our daily newsletter, PYMNTS Today.

    By completing this form, you agree to receive marketing communications from PYMNTS and to the sharing of your information with our sponsor, if applicable, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and Terms and Conditions.

    The case, originally filed in Texas in 2024, alleged that companies including Unilever, Mars, Ørsted, and the World Federation of Advertisers (WFA) had worked together to withhold advertising spending. X Corp claimed this alleged coordination cost the platform billions of dollars in lost revenue, per the Verge.

    However, US District Judge Jane Boyle ruled on Thursday that the company failed to demonstrate it had suffered harm under federal antitrust laws. In her decision, she determined that the claims presented did not meet the legal threshold required to prove anti-competitive conduct.

    The lawsuit came in the wake of a sharp decline in advertising revenue following Musk’s acquisition of Twitter in 2022, after which he rebranded the platform as X. Musk introduced sweeping changes, including restoring accounts of controversial figures and loosening certain content moderation policies. According to the Verge, these moves coincided with a significant pullback in advertising, with revenue dropping by more than half within a year.

    Related: Jury Finds Musk Liable for Misleading Twitter Shareholders During Takeover Fight

    X Corp argued that the advertisers’ actions violated US competition laws by coordinating against their own financial interests. The company also pointed to the WFA’s Global Alliance for Responsible Media (Garm) initiative as a mechanism through which advertisers allegedly aligned their decisions. Garm aims to help the industry address illegal or harmful online content and its monetization through advertising, per the Verge.

    At the time the lawsuit was filed, Musk publicly escalated his stance, posting: “We tried being nice for 2 years and got nothing but empty words. Now, it is war.”

    The defendants, including CVS and others, denied any wrongdoing and maintained that their advertising decisions were made independently. They argued that X Corp had not provided sufficient evidence of coordinated behavior, according to the Verge.

    Judge Boyle agreed with the defendants’ position. In her written opinion, she stated that Garm did not function as an intermediary controlling ad purchases or directing companies to avoid X.

    “The very nature of the alleged conspiracy does not state an antitrust claim, and the court therefore has no qualm dismissing with prejudice,” she concluded.

    The ruling effectively ends the case, marking a significant legal setback for X Corp as it continues to navigate challenges in rebuilding its advertising business.

    Source: The Verge