'Now it is war': Elon Musk and X sue advertisers over illegal boycott that allegedly cost the company billions

X CEO Linda Yaccarino announced a lawsuit against advertisers after a House Judiciary Committee report revealed an illegal boycott against the company.

The report, titled "GARM's (Global Alliance for Responsible Media) Harm," detailed the work of the World Federation of Advertisers, which controls GARM and represents some of the world's largest companies and advertisers.

According to a report by the New York Post, the WFA controls 90% of global marketing spending, which amounts to $1 trillion per year and includes companies like Disney and Coca-Cola.

'The illegal behavior of these organizations and their executives cost X billions of dollars.'

In a post made directly on X, Yaccarino remarked, "I thought I had seen everything."

"The report disclosed that their investigation had found evidence of an illegal boycott against many companies, including X," the CEO continued.

Yaccarino then announced an antitrust lawsuit against GARM, the WFA, and GARM members CVS Health, Mars, Orsted, and Unilever.

"This is not a decision we took lightly, but it is a direct consequence of their actions," she added.

X owner Elon Musk shared Yaccarino's X post and simply added, "We tried peace for 2 years, now it is war."

Yaccarino boasted of X's growing numbers, noting that despite being an effective platform for advertisers and even surpassing requests made by GARM itself, the company still lost billions.

"The illegal behavior of these organizations and their executives cost X billions of dollars."

The CEO pointed out that the House committee obtained evidence that showed "GARM and its members directly organized boycotts and used other indirect tactics to target disfavored platforms, content creators, and news organizations in an effort to demonetize and, in effect, limit certain choices for consumers.'"

BlazeTV's James Poulos said that conflict between Musk and X's advertisers has been escalating for years, and now the reason for that has finally become clear.

"Rather than mild-mannered normies afraid of controversial content on X, advertisers operate as a cartel of far-left propagandists, reaping profits from taxpayers on government contracts while conspiring to silence free speech at odds with their radical ideologies."

Poulos added that the "ugly truth" about the matter is that "corporate cartels" have been revealed to have a stranglehold on online discourse and national politics.

"No group, whatever its beliefs, should wield such control over the bounds of our words and thoughts on the most fundamental issues. Fortunately, antitrust law offers a powerful tool to help protect us from that kind of silent digital coup against our constitutionally guaranteed rights and form of government," he concluded.

The House report also reportedly obtained internal emails from the advertising alliance that showed its head, Robert Rakowitz, allegedly bragging that X was "80% below revenue forecasts" since the company was targeted.

Rakowitz later claimed the email was a "self-effacing joke."

CVS Health, Orsted, Mars, and Unilever have not released public statements on the matter and did not respond to requests for comment from the New York Post or Fox News.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!