X appeals advertiser boycott lawsuit after judge ruled losing to rivals isn't antitrust harm

X, owned by Elon Musk, is seeking to revive litigation against a group of major advertisers accused of illegally boycotting the platform. The company has filed an appeal with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals after a district judge dismissed the original suit in March, finding no antitrust violation.

In its arguments, X contends the advertisers' actions amount to an "unusually brazen group boycott" that inflicted massive economic losses on the platform. The company's lawyers stress that regulators and Congress have already taken notice of this conduct, and there is no valid reason to prevent the direct victim from recovering damages.

The lawsuit targeted ten defendants, including Mars, CVS Health, Nestle, Abbott Laboratories, Colgate-Palmolive, Lego, Pinterest, Tyson Foods, Shell, and Ørsted. Last week, Musk reached a settlement with the World Federation of Advertisers, the first named defendant. However, X agreed to drop claims only against that organization, continuing to push for the case to proceed against the remaining companies.

X argues the advertisers' collusion harmed not just the platform but competition in the social media market, allowing other players to charge rates above competitive pricing. The company asserts that given the defendants' market power, their agreement to boycott X can only be characterized as an unreasonable restraint on trade.

Judge Jane Boyle, a George W. Bush appointee, relied on precedent holding that losing customers to competitors does not constitute an antitrust injury. She noted the only harm X demonstrated was customers collectively choosing rival platforms, which falls outside the definition of an antitrust violation.