Landmark ruling reinforces corporate autonomy in advertising decisions and raises questions about the boundaries of competition law in the digital economy
A federal judge in the Northern District of Texas has dismissed X Corp’s antitrust lawsuit against the World Federation of Advertisers (WFA) and a roster of major global brands—including Danish renewable energy leader Ørsted and toy manufacturer Lego—dealing a significant blow to Elon Musk’s campaign to recoup billions in lost advertising revenue.
In a 56-page opinion issued Thursday, U.S. District Judge Jane Boyle ruled that X failed to establish an antitrust injury, stating: “X has not stated an antitrust injury.” The dismissal, which applies to all defendants including Nestlé, Shell, Pinterest, Mars, CVS Health, Abbott Laboratories, Colgate-Palmolive, Tyson Foods, and Twitch, effectively ends—at least for now—one of the most closely watched legal battles in the intersection of digital media, corporate responsibility, and competition law.
The Case and Its Nordic Dimensions
X Corp filed its initial complaint in August 2024, targeting the WFA and its now-defunct brand safety initiative, the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM). The lawsuit alleged that these entities orchestrated a “massive advertiser boycott” following Musk’s October 2022 acquisition of Twitter, costing the platform billions in revenue.
For Nordic business readers, the inclusion of Ørsted A/S—the Copenhagen-based global leader in offshore wind energy—was particularly notable. Ørsted, which has built its brand on sustainability and corporate responsibility, was named alongside Lego, the Danish toy giant that has similarly cultivated a reputation for ethical business practices and environmental stewardship. The presence of two prominent Danish companies in this high-stakes U.S. litigation underscored the global reach of American antitrust law and the potential vulnerability of European corporations to such legal actions.
The suit was later expanded in February 2025 to include additional defendants, with X’s legal team filing an amended complaint that brought Lego, Nestlé, and others into the fold. The timing was significant: the expansion came just weeks after the Republican-led House Judiciary Committee issued a report accusing GARM of coordinating actions to “demonetize platforms, podcasts, news outlets, and other content deemed disfavoured.”
The Court’s Reasoning: Why Antitrust Law Failed Here
Judge Boyle’s dismissal rested on two critical findings: lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim under antitrust law.
The ruling highlights a fundamental tension in American competition law. X’s central argument—that advertisers collectively withholding spending constituted an illegal boycott—required proving that the defendants engaged in concerted action with anticompetitive effects. However, as legal observers noted, courts typically distinguish between commercial boycotts designed to manipulate markets and decisions driven by brand safety concerns, reputational risk assessment, or political expression.
The defendants successfully argued that their advertising decisions represented independent business judgments about brand alignment and risk management, not an illegal conspiracy. In their motion to dismiss, the companies characterised the lawsuit as “an attempt to use the courthouse to win back the business X lost in the free market when it disrupted its own business and alienated many of its customers.”
This distinction matters for Nordic businesses operating in the U.S. market: corporate decisions about where to allocate advertising budgets remain protected commercial speech, and collective industry standards—such as those promoted by GARM—do not automatically violate antitrust law, even when they result in significant economic impact on individual platforms.
Market Context: The Revenue Reality Behind the Lawsuit
The legal defeat comes as X continues to struggle with advertiser retention nearly four years after Musk’s acquisition. According to eMarketer estimates, X’s advertising revenue is projected to reach $2.2 billion in 2026—less than half of the $4.5 billion Twitter generated in its final pre-acquisition year.
This decline reflects a fundamental shift in the platform’s value proposition. Following Musk’s takeover, X implemented sweeping changes: mass layoffs affecting content moderation teams, reinstatement of previously banned accounts including controversial political figures, and the elimination of human rights and anti-manipulation investigation units. These moves, while aligned with Musk’s vision of “free speech absolutism,” created what many brand safety professionals viewed as an unacceptable risk environment.
The WFA’s decision to shutter GARM entirely in August 2024—just days after X filed suit—demonstrated the chilling effect of litigation on industry self-regulation. The organization cited the need to focus resources on legal defence, noting that “recent allegations that unfortunately misconstrue its purpose and activities have caused a distraction and significantly drained its resources and finances.”
Strategic Implications for Nordic Corporations
1. Brand Safety as a Legal Shield
The ruling reinforces that Nordic companies’ investments in ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) frameworks and brand safety protocols provide legitimate business justifications for advertising decisions. Ørsted and Lego’s participation in industry standards bodies like GARM—prior to its dissolution—can be defended as prudent risk management rather than anticompetitive collusion.
2. The Limits of U.S. Antitrust Extraterritoriality
While the case was dismissed on substantive grounds rather than jurisdictional ones, the court’s handling of international defendants suggests that Nordic companies remain exposed to U.S. litigation even when their headquarters and primary operations are outside American jurisdiction. The Texas venue—selected by X’s legal team—reflects the forum-shopping strategies common in U.S. federal litigation.
3. Political Risk in Platform Dependencies
The lawsuit emerged from a politically charged environment, with Musk—a prominent advisor to the Trump administration—leveraging Republican congressional investigations to support his legal claims. Nordic businesses must recognize that platform relationships can become entangled in American political dynamics, requiring sophisticated government affairs and legal strategies.
What This Means for the Digital Advertising Ecosystem
The dismissal leaves significant questions unanswered about the future of industry-wide brand safety standards. With GARM dissolved and the legal pathway for challenging advertiser coordination blocked, social media platforms may face increased pressure to unilaterally demonstrate safety compliance—a potentially costly prospect for smaller competitors.
For X specifically, the ruling removes one avenue for revenue recovery while the platform continues its pivot toward subscription models and alternative monetization strategies. The company has attempted to win back advertisers through block-list technologies and renewed brand safety commitments, but the structural damage to advertiser relationships appears persistent.
Looking Ahead: The Unilever Precedent
Notably, X had previously secured a settlement with Unilever in October 2024, with the consumer goods giant subsequently re-establishing its X social media account. This suggests that while collective industry action may be protected under antitrust law, individual companies retain flexibility to negotiate platform relationships based on evolving risk assessments and commercial interests.
The Unilever case offers a template for how major advertisers might manage platform relationships going forward: bilateral negotiations rather than collective industry responses, potentially fragmenting the unified front that characterized the post-2022 Twitter exodus.
What’s Next: Follow Our Coverage
This ruling marks a pivotal moment in the evolving relationship between social media platforms and the advertisers that fund them—but it is unlikely to be the final word. In our next issue, Nordic Business Journal will examine how European regulators are responding to the dissolution of industry self-regulatory bodies like GARM, and whether the EU’s Digital Services Act may create new compliance obligations that reshape platform-advertiser dynamics. We will also profile how Ørsted, Lego, and other Nordic brands are recalibrating their digital advertising strategies in a post-boycott landscape.
Connect with Nordic Business Journal:
Stay informed on transatlantic business law, ESG strategy, and Nordic corporate leadership. Follow us on LinkedIn, subscribe to our weekly briefing at nordicbusinessjournal.com/newsletter, or contact our editorial team at editor@nordicbusinessjournal.com to share your perspective on how this ruling affects your organisation’s risk management framework.
Sources: MediaPost, Business Insider, NPR, USA Today, JD Supra, The Verge, Wall Street Journal