Will X's GARM lawsuit stop organisations calling out bad practice online?

Questions around brand safety are swirling in adland amid the power struggle between advertisers and platforms. 

Last year, X owner Elon Musk told advertisers to “go f*** yourselves” after major brands, including Disney, Apple and IBM, pulled ads from the platform over concerns about appearing next to harmful content.

Last week, X launched an antitrust lawsuit that caused the Global Alliance for Responsible Media to dissolve just days later. 

Musk claimed that advertisers enacted an “illegal boycott” to withhold adspend. He posted on X: "We tried being nice for 2 years and got nothing but empty words. Now, it is war."

GARM, an industry watchdog founded in 2019 by the World Federation of Advertisers, worked to reduce the monetisation of advertising on platforms producing harmful content.

While some brand consultants say the suit may be “disastrous and frivolous” for X, others have said that GARM’s boycott of Musk’s social media platform was the right idea but the wrong execution. 

Darren Woolley, founder and global chief executive of marketing consultancy Trinity P3, argued: "Advertisers have a responsibility to act in the best interests of their shareholders and customers, but that does not give them the right to flout anti-cartel laws.”

The question remains, as an industry body is forced to close under the weight of a lawsuit from a powerful platform, will organisations stop calling out harmful media practices online?

Hannah Kimuyu, managing director performance, Brave Bison 

X wanting to sue GARM should not have an impact. GARM is an essential organisation and extremely necessary in response to the challenges of brand and audience protection. It was initiated to assist advertisers in avoiding harmful content next to their promotions, protecting their audiences and experiences. 

Advertisers are becoming more responsible but still need an independent body to keep them accountable and their brands safe, whether it be GARM, or any other organisation. There has to be accountability and responsibility, especially in the guise of "freedom of speech" and the apparent division we are seeing on X.

Paul Bainsfair, director general, IPA

GARM provided useful tools for advertisers, such as its Brand Safety Floor, but this was very much within a broader ecosystem of safeguards for advertisers. The dissolution of GARM is completely understandable for a small, trade not-for-profit in reaction to the prospect of significant exposure to legal costs. This does not mean for one moment that its dissolution was warranted or that it will facilitate a flood of advertisers returning to X. If anything, these bullying tactics will lead major individual advertisers to cast an even more careful eye as to how brand safe or otherwise individual platforms and their content are.

Andy Nairn, founding partner, Lucky Generals

I think it will have precisely the opposite effect. Brand owners are rightly concerned about platforms' failure to take brand safety seriously. That is exacerbated in X's case, because Musk seems to be actively encouraging a toxic environment (as opposed to passively allowing it to happen, which better describes the complaint made against others). In particular, his aggressive pursuit of GARM (an ironic move for the supposed champion of free speech!) will only increase this anxiety.

At best for Musk, the current legal action might have a short-term chilling effect on collective, organised criticism but it will not prevent many individual brands and agencies from speaking out or simply not advertising with him. In the medium and longer term it will unravel because his legal argument seems to be so flimsy (like a lot of such bullies, he's really relying on his deep pockets rather than his legal merits) and because governments all over the world have made it clear that they will be getting involved – not to quash free speech but to prevent hate.

Jon Mew, chief executive, IAB UK

No – I believe the opposite is true. Now is the time to double down on best practice. GARM’s closure has understandably raised many questions and left some advertisers feeling isolated. That makes it all the more important that we continue with cross-industry collaboration and champion the standards and frameworks that counter risks online to help give advertisers confidence in where they’re spending.

These initiatives have largely been instigated and coordinated by trade bodies and, while it is not trade bodies’ role to tell advertisers where to invest, it is their role to enable effective self-regulation and equip advertisers with voluntary ways to improve transparency and brand safety. Not only does this approach benefit our industry as a whole, it also shows the government that we can proactively keep our house in order and solve shared challenges.

Jeff Matisoff, partner, Jellyfish

No, it certainly won't stop us. As an industry we have a duty of care to understand what environments are right for each of our clients, to analyse the performance of those environments towards each of our clients’ business goals and a wider duty of care to build an equitable and sustainable world. Calling out bad practice drives change, improves standards and practices evolve for the better every time we put our clients first and human decency paramount.

Stephen Woodford, chief executive, the Advertising Association

No, it is in everyone’s interest for advertising online to take place in a safe environment – one that is trusted, inclusive and sustainable. This is a priority for all our members across the advertising ecosystem, from advertisers through to agencies and media owners, alongside the tech companies. As such, there will always be room to highlight where there are issues to address, as well as the positive steps that organisations are taking to tackle bad practices. A critical component is the Online Advertising Programme, where our industry is working in partnership with the UK government to make positive progress and ensure the highest possible standards.

Phil Smith, director general, ISBA

The simple fact is that X’s action should not and will not stop the push for greater brand safety – because it is absolutely fundamental to a healthy, responsible advertising environment.

Advertisers have the reasonable expectation that the platforms they use to reach consumers will adhere to their own terms and conditions, and be seen to be doing so, when it comes to tackling and removing harmful content, such as that promoting terrorism or exploitation. The tragedy of recent events is that brands, agencies, trade bodies and the platforms have been working together to identify and demonetise that content.

ISBA members are clear that it’s critical that they have transparency throughout their supply chains, so that they can make responsible marketing decisions. With that transparency still a work in progress, it would be fanciful to think that those efforts will stop here.