The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas recently dismissed an antitrust lawsuit initiated by Rumble, Inc., a media company linked to former President Donald Trump. The case involved defendants World Federation of Advertisers, Diageo PLC, WPP PLC, and GroupM Worldwide, Inc. Rumble accused these advertisers of conspiring to limit ad spending on its platform, which hosts Trump’s Truth Social network. The dismissal, issued by Judge Jane Boyle, highlighted procedural issues including lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue, and failure to state a claim, rather than addressing the substance of the accusations.
In her decision, Judge Boyle emphasized that the case bore little connection to Texas, reinforcing the defendants’ assertion that the lawsuit was misplaced geographically. Rumble’s complaint, filed in early August, revolved around the World Federation of Advertisers’ Global Alliance for Responsible Media, an initiative aimed at ensuring digital safety by developing brand safety standards. These standards were intended to prevent advertising dollars from supporting content deemed illegal or harmful. This initiative was disbanded shortly after the lawsuit emerged, as reported by JURIST.
The advertisers rejected any allegations of collusion, maintaining there were legitimate, non-boycott reasons for their decision not to advertise on Rumble. They also contended that Rumble was attempting to leverage antitrust laws to compel a business relationship that was commercially unwarranted, as highlighted in the Reuters coverage. This case joins a series of legal actions by Rumble and Trump’s media ventures against what they perceive as orchestrated censorship and disinformation campaigns. Among these, a lawsuit was filed against Brazilian Justice Alexandre de Moraes over orders suspending social media accounts, which Rumble and Trump Media & Technology Group argue infringed upon free speech rights.
This ruling adds to the ongoing legal narrative surrounding Trump-linked media entities and their frequent recourse to the courts in disputes involving alleged bias and censorship, reflecting ongoing tensions in the dynamic between digital platforms and advertisers.