The Elon Musk-led X (formerly known as Twitter) continues to spawn one controversy after the other as the social media giants have now sued Twitch. The lawsuit is reportedly part of X’s ongoing legal battles with similar companies over their advertising woes. As such, the public is eager to know more about the tussle between the two internet juggernauts.
Here’s everything you need to know regarding the recent accusations put up by Elon Musk’s X (Twitter) against Twitch.
Elon Musk’s X sues Twitch over advertisers
The debacle originally kickstarted in August 2024 when X charged members of the now-defunct Global Alliance of Responsible Media (GARM) of conspiring together to disrupt the social media company’s advertising stream.
Elon Musk’s X accused GARM participants of conspiring to “collectively withhold billions of dollars in advertising revenue.” The California-based organization has now added Twitch to the mix, officially naming the Amazon-owned service as a defendant on Monday.
According to Business InsiderX or Twitter’s issues with Twitch stem from the latter choosing to discontinue purchasing ads on the Elon Musk-owned platform. Moreover, the 2006-founded company also claimed that Twitch has only invested a minimal amount on advertising elsewhere since November 2022. As such, X’s advertisment revenue has sustained a significant blow, explaining their decision to sue Twitch alongside several other conglomerates.
The said lawsuit includes as many as 18 GARM members, featuring the likes of Mars, Ørsted, and CVS Health, among others. The list previously included Unilever as well, before the British consumer goods reportedly company reached an out-of-court settlement with Elon Musk’s X. Consequently, the suit duely omitted Unilever’s name as a defendant in October 2024.
GARM, initiated by the World Federation of Advertisers (WFA) to focus on issues like brand safety and hate speech, was forced to close shop earlier this year due to the lawsuit. The WFA, who are still opposing the allegations levied by X, reasoned GARM’s abrupt disposal by citing their heightened lack of resources following the suit.
Comments are closed.