X sues advertisers for “illegal” boycott

Yoused said:
What exactly are the laws that govern boycotts?
Click to expand...
Beats me. I guess if there’s some sort of anti-trust angle, or something, which seems to be what Musk’s lawyers are going for here.
 
Cmaier said:
Beats me. I guess if there’s some sort of anti-trust angle, or something, which seems to be what Musk’s lawyers are going for here.
Click to expand...
I am a bit confused, I thought that anti-trust laws were to protect consumers from a single business organization from having a stranglehold on a sector. This seems to be a company claiming other companies don't want to do business with them.

As Corey Lendowski said, "Womp Womp!"
 
rdrr said:
I am a bit confused, I thought that anti-trust laws were to protect consumers from a single business organization from having a stranglehold on a sector. This seems to be a company claiming other companies don't want to do business with them.

As Corey Lendowski said, "Womp Womp!"
Click to expand...
I’m no expert on antitrust law, but I am having difficulty understanding how the allegations in the complaint align with what I learned when I took the course in law school.

It can definitely be illegal for companies to work together to squeeze a company out of business, but I can’t recollect ever hearing of such a case where the company being squeezed wasn’t a competitor. Doesn’t mean it hasn’t happened, though.
 
Eric said:
Now I'm no legal scholar myself, but I would guess having a verbal statement saying "go fuck yourself" directly to the advertisers could be used in a court of law.
Click to expand...

That’s not the least of it. The obvious defense is that X really is a toxic cesspool and that advertising there will harm their businesses. Which means the entire trial will be exhibit after exhibit of nazis, porn, brand impersonation, etc. X will come out of this looking awful.
 
Cmaier said:
That’s not the least of it. The obvious defense is that X really is a toxic cesspool and that advertising there will harm their businesses. Which means the entire trial will be exhibit after exhibit of nazis, porn, brand impersonation, etc. X will come out of this looking awful.
Click to expand...
Good, let the world see it. I mean how can you force advertisers to show ads next to posts screaming the N word with a bunch of Nazi symbols. Also, isn't the free market a right wing staple, or is that now cast aside like they've done with law and order and personal liberties and all of that?
 
Eric said:
Good, let the world see it. I mean how can you force advertisers to show ads next to posts screaming the N word with a bunch of Nazi symbols. Also, isn't the free market a right wing staple, or is that now cast aside like they've done with law and order and personal liberties and all of that?
Click to expand...
Even the X Owner is promoting Civil War.
 
Cmaier said:
That’s not the least of it. The obvious defense is that X really is a toxic cesspool and that advertising there will harm their businesses. Which means the entire trial will be exhibit after exhibit of nazis, porn, brand impersonation, etc. X will come out of this looking awful.
Click to expand...
For that reason I’m not sure if this something he’s actually going to follow through on and go to trial or even discovery. He’s done this before right? Start the process of suing someone, make waves in the press with his performative actions, and then retreat before it gets serious?
 
dada_dave said:
For that reason I’m not sure if this something he’s actually going to follow through on and go to trial or even discovery. He’s done this before right? Start the process of suing someone, make waves in the press with his performative actions, and then retreat before it gets serious?
Click to expand...
yep, he did that re: purchasing twitter, actually.

There are limits, though, and if all the advertisers want the case to continue, it will be difficult for him to drop it unless he agrees to do so with prejudice.
 
Cmaier said:
It can definitely be illegal for companies to work together to squeeze a company out of business, but I can’t recollect ever hearing of such a case where the company being squeezed wasn’t a competitor. Doesn’t mean it hasn’t happened, though.
Click to expand...

I think the closest I’m aware of was in the astronomy space. Orion was a dealer for Celestron (owned by Synta) and Meade, and sued them for intentionally doing price shenanigans to try to kill Orion. The wrinkle there is that Orion also had a store brand of telescopes made by competitors to these two companies like GSO, but primarily sold Synta gear under their store brand. So Orion could be argued to be a dealer and business partner more than a competitor. Orion won both suits, got paid by Celestron while Meade collapsed into bankruptcy (for a second time) immediately after the judgement.

I think the bit that is most relevant here is that Synta still "won" because after the lawsuit, they simply stopped all business with Orion. Which happened to cripple Orion’s store brand, and prevented Orion from selling Celestron gear which was considered better than Meade anyways. Orion appears to have folded in the last few weeks, in part from Synta refusing to let Orion white-label their equipment after the lawsuit. Also in part to Orion buying Meade with the money from Celestron, and failing to use Meade as the in-house brand after Synta cut all ties.

So even if there is an anti-trust angle, I’m not sure that changes much in the end. It’s not going to bring advertisers back, nor will it create any sort of compulsory relationship that entitles X to their advertising money.
 
It sure seems E. M. has lost ground contact. Looks like he believes that somehow his (former) customers have some sort of obligaton to pay him no matter what.

This thing is so weird... who comes up with nonsense like this? Beyond strange
 
Cmaier said:
I’m no expert on antitrust law, but I am having difficulty understanding how the allegations in the complaint align with what I learned when I took the course in law school.
Click to expand...

There's your problem right there. You're using your knowledge of established law to make sense of a case.
 
Does this mean Budweiser can sue the nation's bigots for not buying their beer? It might be hard to prove in court that they are bigots but they'd probably be the first to tell you they are and proud of it.
 
Chew Toy McCoy said:
Does this mean Budweiser can sue the nation's bigots for not buying their beer? It might be hard to prove in court that they are bigots but they'd probably be the first to tell you they are and proud of it.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. Clearly they are in cahoots against Budweiser
 
Chew Toy McCoy said:
Does this mean Budweiser can sue the nation's bigots for not buying their beer? It might be hard to prove in court that they are bigots but they'd probably be the first to tell you they are and proud of it.
Click to expand...
I (not an expert!!) doubt that this would work, but I think you'd have a much better chance of going after influencers who railed against Bud for "tortious inteference", than Musk has for going after advertisers. It's an insane case.

...which means it might fall on fertile ground in, say, the 5th circuit.
 
Back
Top