Winners & losers: A federal judge has dismissed X's lawsuit against a coalition of major advertisers, closing one of the more unusual legal disputes to arise from Elon Musk's ownership of the social media platform. The case, filed in 2024, represented Musk's attempt to frame an industry backlash against his company as an organized antitrust violation – a claim the court found unsupported.

Judge Jane Boyle of the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas ruled Thursday that X failed to show any "antitrust injury," such as a measurable benefit to rival social media companies. "The very nature of the alleged conspiracy does not state an antitrust claim, and the court therefore has no qualm dismissing with prejudice," she wrote in her order, ending the case permanently.

The lawsuit accused the World Federation of Advertisers and several global brands of coordinating an illegal boycott against X under the banner of an online safety initiative. Companies named in the complaint, including Amazon's Twitch, Shell, Lego, and Pinterest, were alleged to have collectively reduced or suspended advertising on the platform in response to concerns about content moderation and brand safety.

X's decision to bring the antitrust suit reflected the ongoing tension between Musk and corporate advertisers, many of whom had withdrawn spending after his $44 billion acquisition in 2022. Ad revenue fell roughly 50% in the year following the takeover as major brands grew uneasy over Musk's approach to moderating hate speech and misinformation. The billionaire's outspoken comments on social and political issues also made some advertisers wary of association with the platform.

In late 2023, Musk escalated the rhetoric, publicly accusing companies such as Apple, Walt Disney, IBM, Comcast, and Warner Bros. of blackmail for halting their campaigns. He declared during a live interview that brands boycotting X could "go f**k themselves." Several months later, he filed the antitrust suit, saying on X, "We tried peace for 2 years, now it is war."

The defendants denied any collusion, arguing that brands have the right to choose where to advertise. According to several people familiar with internal discussions at the time, Musk's legal strategy unsettled many in the marketing sector. Some advertisers reportedly felt pressured to resume spending with X to avoid potential litigation.

// Related Stories

Musk's at-times close relationship with Donald Trump also made some advertisers feel more anxious to comply with the demands, one person told the Financial Times. One advertiser told the publication that the company was informed it needed to commit a specific amount in ad spend or face a lawsuit.

X eventually dropped Unilever from the suit after it resumed advertising late last year. But the combination of political undertones, Musk's personal involvement, and the lack of legal grounding made the case an uphill battle.

Neither X nor the WFA responded to requests for comment on Boyle's ruling.

For X, the dismissal leaves open the larger question of how it will repair its relationship with advertisers who remain cautious despite Musk's push for autonomy and "free speech absolutism." The platform's next challenge may not be legal, but commercial – convincing marketers that they still belong there.