Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has launched a high-profile investigation into allegations that advertising firms are pressuring social media platforms like X (formerly Twitter) to censor conservative voices. Paxton’s probe focuses on the World Federation of Advertisers (WFA) and its affiliate, the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM), which have been accused of using boycotts and financial pressure to influence content moderation policies.
The investigation comes amid growing concerns over the influence that powerful advertising organizations have over social media platforms. Paxton’s office is specifically examining whether these firms violated the Texas Free Enterprise and Antitrust Act of 1983 by attempting to manipulate platforms into suppressing speech they disagree with. WFA controls 90% of global advertising spending, and its influence over the digital media landscape has raised alarms about the potential for censorship.
One example of these alleged efforts was GARM’s campaign to force platforms like X to adopt stricter content moderation policies following Elon Musk’s purchase of the site. Musk’s promise to make X more free-speech-friendly reportedly drew GARM’s ire, and the group allegedly pressured advertisers to stop supporting X. Similarly, GARM targeted Spotify, attempting to redirect ad revenue to force the platform to deplatform controversial podcaster Joe Rogan.
In a statement, Paxton condemned the alleged actions, calling them “un-American” and accusing the Biden administration of failing to enforce antitrust laws against these politically influential groups. Paxton’s office is now looking into whether the actions of WFA and GARM violated the antitrust provisions of Texas law, which aim to protect competition and prevent anti-competitive practices.
The Texas AG’s investigation follows lawsuits filed by X and Rumble against GARM for its role in pressuring platforms to censor content. Paxton’s office has issued subpoenas for documents related to the pressure campaigns, with the aim of uncovering any coordinated attempts to influence platform policies and suppress speech.
As the investigation continues, it signals a broader effort to hold large corporate interests accountable for their role in shaping online discourse. The case is poised to have significant implications for the future of content moderation, advertising practices, and the balance between free speech and corporate influence in the digital age.
