X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter, has expanded its antitrust lawsuit against major advertisers, alleging that they participated in a systematic illegal boycott of the platform. The lawsuit, initially filed in August 2024, accuses the World Federation of Advertisers (WFA) and its brand safety initiative, the Global Alliance of Responsible Media (GARM), of organizing a boycott to coerce X into complying with GARM's brand safety standards.

The amended complaint, reported by Business Insider, adds new defendants to the lawsuit, including Nestlé, Abbott Laboratories, Colgate, Lego, Pinterest, Tyson Foods, and Shell. These companies join Twitch, which was previously added as a defendant in the suit. The lawsuit alleges that at least 18 GARM-affiliated advertisers stopped purchasing ads on X between November and December 2022, with others substantially reducing their spending. This boycott, according to X, resulted in significant harm to its business, with ad prices on the platform remaining well below those of its competitors.

The lawsuit claims that the WFA and GARM's efforts succeeded in harming X, with the platform's advertising revenue declining as a result of the boycott. The complaint states that the majority of X's advertising revenue comes from small- and medium-sized businesses that are not GARM members or clients of GARM-member advertising agencies. As demand for advertising on X has declined, the price X's remaining advertisers are willing to pay has also declined.

The lawsuit is not the only indication of X's struggling business. According to reports, X's owner Elon Musk told employees in January that "user growth is stagnant, revenue is unimpressive, and we're barely breaking even." This assessment suggests that X's business challenges extend beyond the alleged boycott, with the platform facing broader struggles in the competitive social media market.

The expansion of the lawsuit and the addition of new defendants mark a significant escalation in X's efforts to push back against what it sees as an illegal boycott. The case has significant implications for the social media advertising industry, with potential consequences for the way advertisers approach brand safety and platform relationships. As the lawsuit moves forward, it will be closely watched by industry observers and could have far-reaching impacts on the digital advertising landscape.

In response to the initial lawsuit, the WFA discontinued GARM, citing allegations that "misconstrue its purpose and activities" as a distraction and a drain on its resources and finances. The organization's CEO reportedly told members that it would fight the lawsuit and "demonstrate our full adherence to competition rules in all our activities." It remains to be seen how the WFA and its member advertisers will respond to the expanded lawsuit and the allegations of an illegal boycott.