• Ad companies targeted by a Rumble lawsuit say it's an attempt to "weaponize" antitrust laws.
• Rumble accused Diageo, WPP, and an ad trade group of colluding to boycott the platform.
• The ad companies say Rumble wasn't an attractive ad platform and that there was no conspiracy.

Advertisers targeted by the video platform Rumble in a lawsuit are hitting back.

Drinks giant Diageo, WPP and its media buying arm GroupM, and trade body the World Federation of Advertisers are seeking to dismiss a lawsuit filed against them last year by Rumble. They accuse the platform, which is popular among conservative audiences, of trying to "weaponize" antitrust laws to force advertisers to do business with it.

In Rumble's complaint, initially filed in a Texas court in August, the platform alleged that advertisers and agencies "collectively agreed to restrict the output of digital advertising on social media platforms"
through the WFA's now-defunct initiative, the Global Alliance for Responsible Media.

Rumble's lawsuit said this conspiracy resulted in higher advertising costs, reduced earnings for content creators, and inhibited the platform's growth and profitability.

In their response filed Friday, the WFA, WPP, and Diageo said the case should be dismissed because it didn't successfully allege an agreement, a relevant market, or harm to competition.

The filing says there are "perfectly good non-boycott reasons" why those advertisers and others "have chosen not to advertise on Rumble, which prides itself on lax content moderation and brand-safety measures."

Rumble, the WFA, and Diageo didn't respond to requests for comment. WPP declined to comment.

Rumble's case and the response from advertisers are notable in part because of the suit's similarities to one filed by Elon Musk's X, also in August last year. X is suing the WFA and almost a dozen advertisers who were GARM members — including big names like Mars, Shell, and Nestlé — alleging they conspired to pull ad dollars from X following Musk's takeover of the company formerly known as Twitter.

Those advertisers haven't yet filed a response.

Founded in 2019, GARM was a US-based initiative that aimed to provide frameworks and common language for the ad industry regarding harmful and sensitive content categories like hate speech, online piracy, and violence. Adherence to its Brand Safety Framework was voluntary, and it didn't single out any websites for advertisers to avoid by name.

However, some conservatives argued that GARM had an anti-conservative bias. The House Judiciary Committee, led by its chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, published an investigation last summer that alleged GARM and its members colluded to boycott platforms, podcasts, news outlets, and other content they disfavored, such as X and Joe Rogan's podcast on Spotify.

The WFA has maintained that it will contest the allegations and is confident that it adhered to competition rules.

In August, GARM ceased operations in the wake of Rumble and X's lawsuits, with the WFA saying at the time that the not-for-profit organization only had limited resources.

Advertisers avoided Rumble because its content was risky, the filing says

On its website, Rumble says its video platform grew amid the rise of "cancel culture" and as other services tightened their content moderation rules. Rumble says it supports "diverse opinions, authentic expression, and the need for open dialogue."

The motion to dismiss the suit from Diageo and others says this commercial decision also made Rumble riskier for brands.

"No sweeping conspiracy is needed to explain why brands would have separately and unilaterally chosen not to advertise on Rumble, which prides itself on allowing content other sites will not allow," the legal filing reads. It also says Rumble's lawsuit doesn't sufficiently provide evidence of a group boycott.

In its complaint, Rumble said that starting in June 2023, it contacted GroupM and Diageo separately about advertising on the site, but both parties declined to do so. Rumble speculated in its complaint that Diageo and GroupM didn't advertise with the company because it hadn't implemented policies based on GARM's brand safety standards.

In their legal filing, the advertising companies contend that this didn't amount to a collective agreement to withhold ad dollars from Rumble. While marketers used the GARM framework to inform their ad decisions, GARM didn't direct them to boycott a platform that didn't adhere to it or dole out consequences to advertisers who ignored it, the legal filing says.

"Rumble tries to convert a trade association initiative's short-lived, voluntary 'Brand Safety Framework' into a global conspiracy," the filing says.

The filing argues that brand-safety standards are pro-competitive rather than harming competition because they help protect advertisers and make it easier to transact across various platforms.

"The fact that Rumble did not grow as fast as it wanted does not suggest that the advertising it wished to host evaporated as opposed to landing at a different platform that is more attractive to advertisers," the legal filing says.

Advertisers being sued by Rumble say the case could have 'troubling' First Amendment implications

Rumble is seeking a "permanent injunction" against the WFA, WPP, and Diageo, prohibiting them from continuing their alleged conspiracy to withhold ad dollars from the platform.

The companies argue in their filing that this would have "troubling" First Amendment, or free speech, implications.

"Just as it would violate the First Amendment for the government to tell Rumble what content it must host on its website, it would be similarly unconstitutional for this Court to order Defendants to speak on Rumble," the WFA, WPP, and Diageo argue in their filing.

In addition, they argue that Rumble's choice of court is inappropriate because the case "has nothing to do with Texas, much less the Northern District of Texas" because none of the companies operate their businesses out of the state. The Northern District of Texas has become a favored venue among conservatives, with many of its judges appointed by Republican presidents. Rumble itself is headquartered in Canada.

X's lawsuit against advertisers was also filed in the same court in the Northern District of Texas.

Advertising industry executives are closely following the X and Rumble cases and the House Judiciary Committee's ongoing probe of GARM and its members. Some industry insiders previously told BI that while they felt the cases were without merit, the outcomes of the separate actions could stymie future responsible advertising initiatives.

• Elon Musk's X plans to add more defendants to its lawsuit against advertisers.
• The lawsuit centers on the Global Alliance for Responsible Media and its advertiser members.
• A new legal filing says X wants to add "multiple additional defendants" to the suit.

Elon Musk's X is getting ready to add more defendants to its lawsuit that accuses advertisers of illegally conspiring to boycott the platform.

X initially filed its lawsuit in a Texas court in August. The complaint alleges that members of the Global Alliance for Responsible Media, a now defunct initiative from the advertiser trade body the World Federation of Advertisers, colluded to "collectively withhold billions of dollars in advertising revenue" from X, formerly Twitter.

The current defendants in the case are the WFA, CVS Health, Mars, the energy company Orsted, and Twitch. (Twitch was added to the lawsuit later than the other defendants. Unilever was initially named as a defendant but reached an agreement with X and was dropped from the suit in October.)

A joint filing from X's legal representatives and counsel for the defendants said X planned to file a second amended complaint "in which it will add multiple additional defendants."

The filing said X would share a draft of its second complaint with the current defendants by January 20 and file it with the court by January 25.

Reps for X, CVS, Mars, Orsted, and Twitch didn't respond to requests for comment.

A WFA spokesperson declined to comment. The WFA has previously said that it intends to defend itself in court and that it is confident the outcome will demonstrate that it adhered to competition law.

'Brand safety' is a growing political flash point

News that X could add more defendants to its suit comes at a fraught time for marketers and for the practice of "brand safety."

Much of X's lawsuit against GARM and its members was based on an investigation by the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Jim Jordan, into whether advertisers were illegally banding together to demonetize conservative platforms and voices in violation of antitrust law. Jordan continues to investigate advertisers' and agencies' work with GARM.

The Democratic staff of the House Judiciary Committee published their own report last month accusing Jordan of abusing his oversight power.

Their report argued that Jordan and his allies' goal was "not to conduct antitrust oversight as they claim, but rather to silence criticism of harmful online content and those who promote it."

Russell Dye, a spokesperson for the committee, said its investigation proved the collusion of left-wing advocates to secretly censor conservative speech.

"Those in the media and elsewhere that deny the collusion supported by clear documentation are themselves pushing disinformation," Dye said in a statement.

GARM discontinued operations after X sued it, saying that as a small, nonprofit organization, it lacked the resources to fight the lawsuit.

The WFA is also facing a separate lawsuit from the video site Rumble, which accuses GARM, drinks giant Diageo, the ad agency holding company WPP, and its media arm GroupM of collectively agreeing to restrict advertising on social platforms including Rumble. In November, Texas' attorney general, Ken Paxton, launched an investigation into the WFA over advertiser boycotts.

This month, Meta announced plans to shake up its content-moderation policies in the US, which had some advertisers worried that the tech giant was loosening its brand-safety standards. But unlike in the past, there hasn't been any public suggestion that brands intend to pull ad dollars from Meta in response. Advertising insiders told BI that it was partly a reflection of how reliant marketers had become on Meta, but also that advertisers had become more cautious about publicly criticizing or boycotting platforms and media given the political environment.