Big Free Speech Win: FTC Opens Antitrust Probe Into Anti-Musk Advertiser Collusion
The coordination was too obvious. And a conspiracy in restraint of trade carries up to a $100 million fine and seven years in prison. Now, like Elon in his famous video, the FTC may well say "Hi Bob."
Don’t miss the FREE second excerpt from my NEW Essays on the Counterrevolution.
by Thomas Gallatin
June 12, 2025
Cancel culture just ran up against a brick wall: antitrust law.
Approximately a year after tech billionaire Elon Musk acquired X, formerly known as Twitter, in November 2023, a number of major companies collectively removed their ads from the platform. They all did so while citing dubious concerns that Musk was allowing the promotion of anti-Semitism and “hate speech” on his platform.
The effort to get companies to pull their ads from X was spearheaded by the Enemedia organization Media Matters. Companies that pulled ads significantly impacting X’s revenue generation included the likes of Disney, Apple, IBM, Comcast/NBC Universal, Warner Bros. Discovery, and Paramount.
The European Commission also joined in on the ad boycott, with spokesman Johannes Bahrke contending that the EU had “seen an alarming increase in disinformation and hate speech on several social media platforms in recent weeks,” singling out X.
The Biden administration also tacitly supported the campaign against X, with the White House posting the following statement on November 17, 2023: “We condemn this abhorrent promotion of Antisemitic and racist hate in the strongest terms, which runs against our core values as Americans.”
The pretext for all this — what proved to be faux outrage given the subsequent silence on actual anti-Semitism that would soon roil college campuses across the country — was that Musk had dared to agree with an X post observing that Jewish communities support a “dialectical hatred against whites.”
However, the ad boycott was too coordinated to pass the spontaneous, supposedly organic movement sniff test. Soon, House Republicans began asking questions, with the House Judiciary Committee launching an investigation into the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM). The Committee concluded that GARM “likely violated federal antitrust laws.”
GARM, which was backed by the World Federation of Advertisers, had billed itself as a brand safety organization that helped companies avoid advertising on problematic sites.
Tellingly, the vast majority of these “problematic” sites and platforms happened to hold politically conservative views. Musk filed a lawsuit against GARM, alleging it had set itself up as an ideological gatekeeper. GARM’s response was to deny the charge while quickly disbanding.
Well, it appears that these Enemedia entities passing themselves off as the only trustworthy arbiters of news may soon find their collusion game further exposed.
The Federal Trade Commission has launched an investigation into these media credibility firms over potential antitrust violations. The FTC has sent Civil Investigative Demand letters, which amount to subpoenas, to several Enemedia groups, including Media Matters.
The FTC’s letter to Media Matters asks for “all documents that Media Matters either produced or received in discovery in any litigation between Media Matters and X Corp. related to advertiser boycotts since 2023.”
Revealingly, Alvaro Bedoya, one of the FTC Democrat commissioners whom Donald Trump recently fired from the board, expressed his opposition to investigating Media Matters. He wrote in his resignation letter, “Bizarrely, new FTC leaders have started an investigation into Media Matters, apparently because it may have driven down ad revenues for the President’s $288 million donor, Elon Musk.” With a response like that, it appears that Bedoya’s firing was well earned.
Another media organization included in this FTC investigation is NewsGuard, a self-appointed arbiter of truth that rates the trustworthiness of news media outlets, including our humble shop. I have repeatedly noted how NewsGuard has hardly been fair or consistent in its ratings of media outlets, notably awarding higher credibility marks to Enemedia outlets over conservative ones. Its process is loaded with bias, so naturally, its ratings reflect its own distortion.
FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson has clearly had his eyes on NewsGuard as part of this investigation. Back in December, he stated in a memo, “If a website gets a poor rating on NewsGuard’s ‘nutrition label,’ it can choke off the advertising dollars that are the lifeblood for many websites, including platforms on which millions of Americans every day speak their minds.”
As someone familiar with the FTC investigation said of Ferguson, “He is trying to stop Big Tech bullies and censors. He is trying to stop this illegal restraint on trade from left-wing organizations and groups. He’s trying to get the media to compete within the law.”
What is certain is this. A conspiracy in restraint of trade can carry up to a $100 million fine per conspirator, and seven years in federal prison. These are not laws sensible people would violate…unless they were certain the Administration would look the other way.
Biden did. Trump won’t.
It will be interesting to see what the FTC uncovers and how many of these Enemedia gatekeepers were involved in an underhanded effort to sabotage ad revenue for conservative media outlets. This threat to Liberty must be restrained and eliminated.
— This essay originally appeared at The Patriot Post.
Recent Articles:
 |
|
We have seen a consistent practice among the Left to destroy evidence before investigators arrive or are able to access suspect organizations' web files. I'm not holding out any significant hope that these investigations into the Leftwing Criminal Influence Mob are going to be resoundingly successful but at least someone is making an effort.