That litigious attitude is nothing new.
Its slated to go to trial inApril 2025.
It alleges a GARM conspiracy to collectively withhold billions of dollars in advertising revenue from the company.
Elon Musk, owner of the increasingly litigious X Corp.Apu Gomes/Getty Images
Some withdrew from the platform altogether, while others greatly reduced expenditures there.
However, the agency notes: A business can always unilaterally choose its business partners.
But I dont think the claims are strong.
(He did not haveany particular successin this endeavor.)
Boycotts based on protest generally are protected by the First Amendment, Freund observes.
Balto explains that the suit is totally inconsistent with past FTC actions, which are very limited.
Its not a question of whether or not Twitter lost some money, Balto says.
Its a question of whether or not Twitter was competitively disadvantaged by their actions.
Theres no evidence in this complaint that they were competitively disadvantaged.
This complaint doesnt even get into the batters box, much less get the chance to strike out.
This area of antitrust is actually pretty unsettled, and courts go back and forth, he says.
A lot of antitrust experts are pooh-poohing this, but Im not so sure.
Until then, apparently, Musk can keep burning through his enemies list.
