FTC Takes Steps to Reach Agreement with Advertising Firms Linked to X Boycott

FTC in Talks to Settle with Major Ad Firm over Antitrust Issues

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is currently working on a settlement with a prominent advertising company regarding accusations that the advertiser, linked to Elon Musk’s X platform, broke federal antitrust laws by orchestrating a boycott against it.

The FTC initiated an investigation last year to gather details on whether major advertising firms, including Publicis Groupe, WPP, Dentsu, Havas, and Horizon Media, along with various advocacy groups, had engaged in anti-competitive actions by withholding advertising funds from specific platforms.

A potential settlement might prevent advertisers from pulling ad dollars from media outlets based on the political views expressed there. However, individual advertisers would still have the option to avoid advertising on particular sites. Importantly, this agreement would not imply any acknowledgment of guilt or misconduct from the advertisers.

After Elon Musk took over Twitter in late 2022, numerous big advertisers chose to stop their ads on the platform, now rebranded as X, citing worries about Musk’s commitment to allowing freer speech and his approach to content moderation.

X has taken legal action against several companies, including CVS Health and Colgate-Palmolive, claiming that these firms illegally participated in a boycott of the platform, thereby violating antitrust laws. Yet, the federal court dismissed X’s lawsuit.

This potential settlement comes after FTC Chairman Ferguson’s announcement in June 2025, related to a merger between two major advertising firms, where it was agreed that advertisers would not collude or discriminate based on political or ideological perspectives.

Ferguson noted, “There has been a history of collusion between nations. The shrinking media buying market and the rise of potential collusion post-merger make this a unique situation where behavioral remedies might be suitable.”

The proposed decision mandates that Omnicom and IPG must not engage in practices that divert advertising dollars away from publishers based on political views. The collective action by advertising agencies against publishers with politically unfavorable content could be seen as a non-competitive agreement focused on quality. Legal proceedings could take years to resolve this, so the current directive is expected to keep Omnicom and IPG compliant with antitrust laws while sidestepping lengthy lawsuits.

In a statement from June 2025, Ferguson highlighted that the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM), which was established by Omnicom and IPG, had previously described the concept of free speech as a “distant interpretation of the U.S. Constitution” and a principle formulated by “white men” around 230 years ago.

Moreover, a 2024 House Judiciary Committee report revealed that GARM discussed adding center-right outlets like Breitbart News and Daily Wire to its list of advertising exclusions.

John Montgomery, who was the vice president of global brand safety at the time, mentioned in communication with GARM’s leader that there was an intriguing discussion surrounding Breitbart’s inclusion. While the ideology was unappealing, there was difficulty in justifying their exclusion solely based on opinions. They monitored the situation closely before that outlet crossed a line.