X asks Fifth Circuit to revive advertiser boycott case

X has asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to revive its x advertiser boycott appeal against 10 companies, despite settling with and agreeing to dismiss the World Federation of Advertisers from the case. The filing seeks to overturn a March ruling by U.S. District Judge Jane Boyle that rejected X's antitrust theory, leaving the platform to argue that advertisers coordinated an unlawful refusal to buy ads.

The companies still named in the appeal are Mars, CVS Health, Nestlé, Abbott Laboratories, Colgate-Palmolive, Lego, Pinterest, Tyson Foods, Shell and Ørsted A/S. X's agreement with the WFA removes the trade group, which was the first defendant named in the 2024 lawsuit, but does not resolve the claims against those advertisers.

What is X asking the Fifth Circuit to do?

X is asking the appeals court to reverse Boyle's dismissal as it applies to the remaining defendants and allow the lawsuit to proceed. In its appellate filing, X alleged that the companies coordinated to avoid advertising on the platform, damaging both X and competition among social-media advertising sellers.

The company argues that the alleged coordination displaced the individual decisions advertisers otherwise would have made about whether to purchase ads on X. Those are X's allegations, not findings by a court.

Boyle reached the opposite conclusion in March. According to the ruling, the harm X described was advertisers choosing competing platforms over X. Citing antitrust precedent, Boyle held that losing customers to competitors does not by itself amount to antitrust injury, even where a group boycott is alleged. MediaPost reported that Boyle characterized the alleged conduct as companies deciding not to buy ads from X for their own advertising needs, rather than an effort to control the social-media advertising market.

GARM is central to X's allegations

The dispute centers on the Global Alliance for Responsible Media, or GARM, a WFA initiative that developed definitions and brand-safety guidelines for advertisers and platforms. X contends that GARM gave its members a way to use collective power against the platform.

The WFA has said GARM's standards were voluntary and that members could choose whether to follow them, according to MediaPost. The advertising industry shut GARM down after X filed its lawsuit in 2024.

The appeal puts the case on a narrow procedural track. X must persuade the Fifth Circuit that its allegations can support an antitrust claim, while the advertiser defendants retain Boyle's conclusion that the complaint describes lost business, rather than a legally actionable restriction on competition.

X's advertising business remains under pressure

SpaceX's second-quarter 2026 earnings report, cited by Ars Technica, listed $367 million in X advertising revenue for the quarter, down from $426 million a year earlier. For the first six months of 2026, the report listed $710 million, compared with $870 million in the first half of 2025.

Those reported declines provide context for X's pursuit of the case, but they do not establish that any advertiser conduct caused the revenue change or violated antitrust law.

This story draws on original reporting from Ars Technica.