https://x.com/thereelrandom/status/1811791940461167065?s=46&t=jKXH7m3p0jeKr--GrDZGug

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5554194&forum_id=2#47834346)

i do expect the courts not to treat this as a simply antitrust issue but i do think it's a real issue.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5554194&forum_id=2#47834382)

probably not an exculpatory defense

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5554194&forum_id=2#47835606)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Committee on the Judiciary has jurisdiction over the “[p]rotection of trade and

commerce against unlawful restraints and monopolies.”1

In exercising oversight of the adequacy

and sufficiency of existing U.S. antitrust laws, the Committee has been investigating apparent

collusion within the World Federation of Advertisers (WFA) and specifically its Global Alliance

for Responsible Media (GARM) initiative. Through GARM, large corporations, advertising

agencies, and industry associations participated in boycotts and other coordinated action to

demonetize platforms, podcasts, news outlets, and other content deemed disfavored by GARM

and its members. This collusion can have the effect of eliminating a variety of content and

viewpoints available to consumers.

Created by WFA in 2019,2

GARM quickly amassed tremendous market power in the

advertising industry.3

Among other data points:

• WFA members represent roughly 90% of global advertising spend, or almost one trillion

dollars annually.4

• GARM includes every major advertising agency holding company in its ranks and

includes the world’s largest media buying agency, GroupM, on its Steer Team.5

• GARM’s Steer Team, which acts as a board of directors and is also closely involved in

GARM’s day-to-day operations, includes four large corporations (Unilever, Mars,

Diageo, and Procter & Gamble) that spend billions annually on advertising.6

• GARM reports to the WFA Executive Committee, which must endorse GARM’s work

and includes representatives from AB InBev, L'Oréal, Nestlé, IBM, as well as many more

large corporations and household name brands.7

GARM calls itself “an industry first effort that unites marketers, media agencies, media

platforms, industry associations, and advertising technology solutions providers to safeguard the

potential of digital media by reducing the availability and monetization of harmful content

online.”8 GARM claims that it was created to drive transparency in policies to help companies

achieve “brand safety,” or in other words “transparency on where ads [are] placed [to] mak[e]

sure that [advertisers] don’t inadvertently support” certain content on social media platforms.9 To

achieve this goal, GARM asserts that it works in the “content monetization” space, defined as

“what content ads actually support and the practice of insertion of the ads online.”10 GARM

disclaims involvement in “content moderation,” which is the “practice and determination of what

content is appropriate for hosting[,] recommend[ing,] and [making] availab[le] on [a]

platform.”11 GARM admits, however, that “[c]ontent monetization and moderation are

inextricably linked and lapses in moderation put advertising and advertisers at risk[.]”12 In other

words, GARM’s monetization work has the effect of influencing what content appears online.

For an organization reliant on speech and persuasion in advertising, GARM appears to

have anti-democratic views of fundamental American freedoms. In discussing his views on

freedom of speech, GARM’s leader and co-founder, Rob Rakowitz, has expressed frustration

with an “extreme global interpretation of the US Constitution” and complained about using

“‘principles for governance’ and applying them as literal law from 230 years ago (made by white

men exclusively).”13 With this worldview, GARM pushed what it called “uncommon

collaboration” to “rise above individual commercial interest[.]”14

Section 1 of the Sherman Act makes unreasonable restraints of trade illegal.15 Included in

these illegal restraints are certain group boycotts and coordinated actions that harm consumers.16

Documents produced to the Committee suggest that GARM may have engaged in coordinated

conduct that violates Section 1. GARM has undertaken various actions to eliminate the

monetization, and in effect existence, of certain voices online. For example:

• Twitter and Elon Musk: According to one GARM member, GARM recommended that its

members “stop[] all paid advertisement” on Twitter in response to Mr. Musk’s acquisition

of the company.17 GARM’s internal documents show that GARM was asked by a

member to “arrange a meeting and hear more about [GARM’s] perspectives about the

Twitter situation and a possible boycott from many companies.” 18 GARM also held

“extensive debriefing and discussion around Elon Musks’ [sic] takeover of Twitter,”

providing ample opportunity for the boycott to be organized.19 GARM bragged about

“taking on Elon Musk” and “[s]ince then [Twitter was] 80% below revenue

forecasts[.]”20

• Spotify and The Joe Rogan Experience: At the urging of its members, GARM and its

Steer Team threatened Spotify over alleged misinformation on Joe Rogan’s podcast, The

Joe Rogan Experience, because Mr. Rogan stated an opinion that young, healthy people

need not receive the COVID-19 vaccine.21 GARM even admitted it was acting outside of

the scope of its work on brand safety, explaining to one of its members that “[b]rand

safety is somewhat separate on Spotify versus say Facebook Newsfeed because brands

aren’t being slotted into” the podcast.22 In other words, the companies could easily

choose whether to advertise on or avoid Mr. Rogan’s podcast and, therefore, GARM had

no business interfering in Spotify’s decision.

23 GARM even admitted the antitrust

implications of getting caught, when Mr. Rakowitz told one GARM member that he

“can’t publicly advise all clients to do X – that gets us into hot water by way of

anticompetitive and collusive behaviors.”24 To get around this problem, Mr. Rakowitz

offered to “help [brands] formulate a [point of view] 1:1.”25 In doing so, even as Mr.

Rakowitz mistook his trade association members with “clients,” such a coordinated

action implicates antitrust law.

• Candidates, platforms, and news outlets with opposing political views: GARM and its

members discussed a strategy of blocking certain news outlets like Fox News, The Daily

Wire, and Breitbart News. One GARM Steer Team member candidly wrote that although

he “hated their ideology and bulls**t,” his company “couldn’t really justify blocking

them for misguided opinion[s]” so the company “watched them very carefully and it

didn’t take long for them to cross the line.”26 Additionally, GARM pushes its members to

use news rankings organizations, like the Global Disinformation Index (GDI) and

NewsGuard, that disproportionately label right-of-center news outlets as so-called

misinformation.27 GARM and its Steer Team even participated in efforts to label a social

media advertisement paid for by President Donald Trump as “misinformation.”28 When

Facebook would not label the advertisement as misinformation, Mr. Rakowitz told a

colleague that it was “[h]onestly reprehensible[.]” A GARM Steer Team member

expressed concern about Mr. Musk exposing the truth regarding how Twitter was

previously used to censor the Hunter Biden laptop and Biden family influence peddling

story, describing Mr. Musk’s position as an “overtly partisan take[.]”29

GARM’s plans for the future involve pushing its framework into artificial intelligence

(AI) solutions.30 GARM’s partners are developing AI tools that will integrate GARM’s standards

seamlessly across social media platforms.31 Such an automated censorship effort could result in

the demonetization of any views or voices that GARM’s advertising cartel dislikes, potentially

without any human involvement at all. Such concentrated market power is dangerous, and the

implications of AI technology on advertising censorship are frightening.

The extent to which GARM has organized its trade association and coordinates actions

that rob consumers of choices is likely illegal under the antitrust laws and threatens fundamental

American freedoms. The information uncovered to date of WFA and GARM’s collusive conduct

to demonetize disfavored content is alarming. The Committee will continue its investigation into

the companies that participate in this conduct to inform potential legislative reforms.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5554194&forum_id=2#47834377)