{"id":122758,"date":"2025-06-11T13:02:37","date_gmt":"2025-06-11T21:02:37","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2025\/06\/11\/elon-musk-has-plan-to-make-x-profitable-the-secret-ingredient-is-trump-administration-threats\/"},"modified":"2025-06-11T13:02:37","modified_gmt":"2025-06-11T21:02:37","slug":"elon-musk-has-plan-to-make-x-profitable-the-secret-ingredient-is-trump-administration-threats","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2025\/06\/11\/elon-musk-has-plan-to-make-x-profitable-the-secret-ingredient-is-trump-administration-threats\/","title":{"rendered":"Elon Musk Has Plan To Make X Profitable: The Secret Ingredient Is Trump Administration Threats!"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

After Elon Musk transformed Twitter into a racial slur generator<\/a> and users fled en masse<\/em>, advertisers understandably scaled back their ad spend. Apparently brands don\u2019t like it when MAGAKing6969\u2019s Great Replacement Theory post shows up next to a company\u2019s \u201cSpeaking of replacement\u2026 is it time to replace your mobile carrier?\u201d ad.<\/p>\n

The advertising exodus put the mogul in a bind as he scrambled to make good on the investment he\u2019d accidentally made because he\u2019s too stupid to figure out how Delaware law works<\/a>. Early efforts to stem the tide flopped when Media Matters decided to test the protections the newly branded X team promised advertisers from having their brands appear next to racist content and\u2026 it turns out they didn\u2019t stop the problem. Musk trashed the Media Matters test as manufactured since it would only bypass X\u2019s promised protections if the feed was specifically curated for a comically racist user, overlooking that this describes a solid 20 percent of X these days.<\/p>\n

So Elon sued Media Matters<\/a>. And a bunch of advertisers<\/a>. Just flinging legal gibberish all over the docket (and social media) about how it\u2019s super-duper-unlegal antitrust or criminal RICO for corporations to not give him money. His credible lawyers wouldn\u2019t touch this nonsense, so he turned to Harmeet Dhillon, who now heads up the increasingly hollow<\/a> DOJ Civil Rights Division. If companies agreed to buy ads of dubious utility from him, they could avoid the hassle of legal action.<\/p>\n

And, unfortunately for the sanctity of law, this strategy proved reasonably successful. The Wall Street Journal has a detailed report<\/a> based on interviews with over two dozen sources covering concessions from the likes of Unilever and Verizon to avoid getting dragged into court. While X reportedly seeks commitments from companies to spend at least as much as they did pre-Musk \u2014 and in some cases double \u2014 the companies by and large are coming back with lower spend. The company is on track to have about half the revenue it once boasted.<\/p>\n

\n

Some antitrust experts said X faces a high bar to prove its claims. \u201cIt would be an antitrust violation if the advertisers got together and said, \u2018Let\u2019s boycott X to get lower ad rates,\u2019\u201d said Cardozo Law School Professor Sam Weinstein, a former Justice Department antitrust lawyer. But if advertisers were motivated by a desire not to be associated with the kind of speech X was allowing, he said, \u201cthat\u2019s unlikely to be an antitrust violation.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The frivolous lawsuits aren\u2019t really news, but the WSJ report also noted that Musk\u2019s game has leveled up:<\/p>\n

\n

On May 20, the Federal Trade Commission sent Media Matters a civil investigative demand, signaling that the agency is investigating the entity. The document, which was reviewed by the Journal, requests information from the group, including: \u201call documents that Media Matters either produced or received in discovery in any litigation between Media Matters and X Corp. related to advertiser boycotts since 2023.\u201d<\/p>\n

The agency is investigating whether ad and advocacy groups violated antitrust laws by coordinating boycotts of certain sites, including X. On Monday, the FTC sent requests for information to ad companies<\/a> including Omnicom, WPP, Publicis and Interpublic.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The FTC, currently boasting zero of the ostensibly required Democratic commissioners, is lending an official veneer to the bonkers argument that it\u2019s an antitrust violation to publicize that a company isn\u2019t delivering on a promise. That companies acted, in part, upon the Media Matters finding doesn\u2019t convert this into any sort of antitrust conspiracy. It\u2019s as though X reached the point of diminishing returns on the lawsuits and decided leveraging the government \u2014 who doesn\u2019t have to drag a loser of a complaint past a motion to dismiss to get some quasi-discovery via demand letters \u2014 against Media Matters might dig up something to turn the screws on more advertisers.<\/p>\n

Though the FTC isn\u2019t the only government lever that Musk brings to the party:<\/p>\n

\n

In December, during discussions with advertising conglomerate Interpublic Group<\/a> about increasing spending, X hinted that its recently announced $13 billion deal to merge<\/a> with rival Omnicom Group<\/a>\u00a0could face trouble from the Trump administration<\/a>, The Wall Street Journal has reported. IPG subsequently signed a new annual deal with X for potential client spending. <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

This tracks the ongoing CBS News drama, where Paramount\u2019s desire to close deals without undue administration meddling has put 60 Minutes<\/em> under the prospect of corporate censorship. Musk\u2019s infiltration of the executive branch \u2014 which may be on again?<\/a> \u2014 elevates his already troubling lawfare strategy to new heights. Moreover, if he finds success in leveraging executive threats against boycotts, it opens a new vector for other companies to override market decisions through legal extortion.<\/p>\n

Or maybe he\u2019ll point out that Donald Trump partied with Epstein again and the FTC will drop the case. Place your bets!<\/p>\n

X\u2019s Sales Pitch: Give Us Your Ad Business or We\u2019ll Sue<\/a> [Wall Street Journal] <\/p>\n

Earlier<\/strong>: Elon Musk Says Advertisers Are Doing The RICO If They Don\u2019t Give Him Money<\/a>
Elon Musk\u2019s \u2018It\u2019s Unlegal For Advertisers Not To Give Me Money\u2019 Lawsuit Drives Defendant Out Of Business<\/a>
Elon Musk\u2019s \u2018Thermonuclear Lawsuit\u2019 Is Here And It\u2019s\u2026 Positively Tepid.<\/a><\/p>\n

\n

\"Headshot\"Joe Patrice<\/a>\u00a0is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer<\/a>. Feel free to\u00a0email<\/a> any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on\u00a0Twitter<\/a>\u00a0or Bluesky<\/a> if you\u2019re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search<\/a>.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

The post Elon Musk Has Plan To Make X Profitable: The Secret Ingredient Is Trump Administration Threats!<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"\"
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

After Elon Musk transformed Twitter into a racial slur generator<\/a> and users fled en masse<\/em>, advertisers understandably scaled back their ad spend. Apparently brands don\u2019t like it when MAGAKing6969\u2019s Great Replacement Theory post shows up next to a company\u2019s \u201cSpeaking of replacement\u2026 is it time to replace your mobile carrier?\u201d ad.<\/p>\n

The advertising exodus put the mogul in a bind as he scrambled to make good on the investment he\u2019d accidentally made because he\u2019s too stupid to figure out how Delaware law works<\/a>. Early efforts to stem the tide flopped when Media Matters decided to test the protections the newly branded X team promised advertisers from having their brands appear next to racist content and\u2026 it turns out they didn\u2019t stop the problem. Musk trashed the Media Matters test as manufactured since it would only bypass X\u2019s promised protections if the feed was specifically curated for a comically racist user, overlooking that this describes a solid 20 percent of X these days.<\/p>\n

So Elon sued Media Matters<\/a>. And a bunch of advertisers<\/a>. Just flinging legal gibberish all over the docket (and social media) about how it\u2019s super-duper-unlegal antitrust or criminal RICO for corporations to not give him money. His credible lawyers wouldn\u2019t touch this nonsense, so he turned to Harmeet Dhillon, who now heads up the increasingly hollow<\/a> DOJ Civil Rights Division. If companies agreed to buy ads of dubious utility from him, they could avoid the hassle of legal action.<\/p>\n

And, unfortunately for the sanctity of law, this strategy proved reasonably successful. The Wall Street Journal has a detailed report<\/a> based on interviews with over two dozen sources covering concessions from the likes of Unilever and Verizon to avoid getting dragged into court. While X reportedly seeks commitments from companies to spend at least as much as they did pre-Musk \u2014 and in some cases double \u2014 the companies by and large are coming back with lower spend. The company is on track to have about half the revenue it once boasted.<\/p>\n

\n

Some antitrust experts said X faces a high bar to prove its claims. \u201cIt would be an antitrust violation if the advertisers got together and said, \u2018Let\u2019s boycott X to get lower ad rates,\u2019\u201d said Cardozo Law School Professor Sam Weinstein, a former Justice Department antitrust lawyer. But if advertisers were motivated by a desire not to be associated with the kind of speech X was allowing, he said, \u201cthat\u2019s unlikely to be an antitrust violation.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The frivolous lawsuits aren\u2019t really news, but the WSJ report also noted that Musk\u2019s game has leveled up:<\/p>\n

\n

On May 20, the Federal Trade Commission sent Media Matters a civil investigative demand, signaling that the agency is investigating the entity. The document, which was reviewed by the Journal, requests information from the group, including: \u201call documents that Media Matters either produced or received in discovery in any litigation between Media Matters and X Corp. related to advertiser boycotts since 2023.\u201d<\/p>\n

The agency is investigating whether ad and advocacy groups violated antitrust laws by coordinating boycotts of certain sites, including X. On Monday, the FTC sent requests for information to ad companies<\/a> including Omnicom, WPP, Publicis and Interpublic.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The FTC, currently boasting zero of the ostensibly required Democratic commissioners, is lending an official veneer to the bonkers argument that it\u2019s an antitrust violation to publicize that a company isn\u2019t delivering on a promise. That companies acted, in part, upon the Media Matters finding doesn\u2019t convert this into any sort of antitrust conspiracy. It\u2019s as though X reached the point of diminishing returns on the lawsuits and decided leveraging the government \u2014 who doesn\u2019t have to drag a loser of a complaint past a motion to dismiss to get some quasi-discovery via demand letters \u2014 against Media Matters might dig up something to turn the screws on more advertisers.<\/p>\n

Though the FTC isn\u2019t the only government lever that Musk brings to the party:<\/p>\n

\n

In December, during discussions with advertising conglomerate Interpublic Group<\/a> about increasing spending, X hinted that its recently announced $13 billion deal to merge<\/a> with rival Omnicom Group<\/a>\u00a0could face trouble from the Trump administration<\/a>, The Wall Street Journal has reported. IPG subsequently signed a new annual deal with X for potential client spending. <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

This tracks the ongoing CBS News drama, where Paramount\u2019s desire to close deals without undue administration meddling has put 60 Minutes<\/em> under the prospect of corporate censorship. Musk\u2019s infiltration of the executive branch \u2014 which may be on again?<\/a> \u2014 elevates his already troubling lawfare strategy to new heights. Moreover, if he finds success in leveraging executive threats against boycotts, it opens a new vector for other companies to override market decisions through legal extortion.<\/p>\n

Or maybe he\u2019ll point out that Donald Trump partied with Epstein again and the FTC will drop the case. Place your bets!<\/p>\n

X\u2019s Sales Pitch: Give Us Your Ad Business or We\u2019ll Sue<\/a> [Wall Street Journal] <\/p>\n

Earlier<\/strong>: Elon Musk Says Advertisers Are Doing The RICO If They Don\u2019t Give Him Money<\/a>
Elon Musk\u2019s \u2018It\u2019s Unlegal For Advertisers Not To Give Me Money\u2019 Lawsuit Drives Defendant Out Of Business<\/a>
Elon Musk\u2019s \u2018Thermonuclear Lawsuit\u2019 Is Here And It\u2019s\u2026 Positively Tepid.<\/a><\/p>\n

\n

\"Headshot\"Joe Patrice<\/a>\u00a0is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer<\/a>. Feel free to\u00a0email<\/a> any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on\u00a0Twitter<\/a>\u00a0or Bluesky<\/a> if you\u2019re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search<\/a>.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

After Elon Musk transformed Twitter into a racial slur generator and users fled en masse, advertisers understandably scaled back their ad spend. Apparently brands don\u2019t like it when MAGAKing6969\u2019s Great Replacement Theory post shows up next to a company\u2019s \u201cSpeaking of replacement\u2026 is it time to replace your mobile carrier?\u201d ad. The advertising exodus put […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":122718,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-122758","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-above_the_law"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/xira.com\/p\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/Headshot-300x200-v9gSCm.jpeg?fit=300%2C200&ssl=1","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/122758","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=122758"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/122758\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/122718"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=122758"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=122758"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=122758"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}