Federal Court Throws Out Elon Musk’s X Advertising Boycott Lawsuit

A federal judge in Dallas has rejected X Corp's antitrust case against major advertisers, ruling the social media platform failed to prove it suffered harm under federal law. The lawsuit claimed companies like Mars, CVS Health, and Colgate-Palmolive illegally coordinated to boycott Elon Musk's platform.

A federal judge has thrown out a legal challenge brought by Elon Musk’s X Corp against major advertisers, ruling Thursday that the social media company could not demonstrate it was harmed under antitrust regulations.

U.S. District Judge Jane Boyle, presiding in Dallas federal court, determined that X Corp failed to establish that it had sustained damage under federal antitrust statutes.

The legal action, initiated by X Corp in 2024, alleged that advertisers coordinated through the World Federation of Advertisers’ Global Alliance for Responsible Media program to deprive the platform of “billions of dollars in advertising revenue.” The platform was formerly called Twitter before Musk’s acquisition.

Neither X Corp nor the World Federation of Advertisers provided immediate responses when contacted for comment.

The legal complaint maintained that the advertising companies conspired against the social media site in violation of antitrust regulations, acting contrary to their own financial interests.

CVS and other named defendants had rejected any misconduct allegations and requested that Boyle throw out the case. The companies contended that X Corp could not demonstrate coordinated action, arguing instead that each business made independent choices about their advertising expenditures.

In legal documents submitted during the proceedings, the defendant companies stated that advertisers made separate decisions to use competing platforms because of worries about X’s dedication to brand safety after Musk’s 2022 acquisition. During that transition, he terminated staff members who the companies claimed had maintained the platform as “welcoming to users and accommodating to family-friendly brands.”

In her ruling, Judge Boyle stated that “the very nature of the alleged conspiracy does not state an antitrust claim, and the court therefore has no qualm dismissing with prejudice.”