The World Federation of Advertisers, WPP, Diageo, and WPP Media are pressing a federal judge to dismiss Rumble’s lawsuit alleging an advertiser boycott. They argue that courts in Texas lack jurisdiction over the dispute and that Rumble failed to allege facts that could establish a violation of antitrust law.
The defendants claim that Rumble’s complaint lacks specific allegations of wrongdoing in Texas and fails to show an agreement to boycott. “Rumble’s complaint includes no allegations that any defendant did anything in Texas related to Rumble’s claims,” they state. They also argue that the brand safety agreement does not identify Rumble as inappropriate for advertising and that advertisers are free to ignore the framework.
READ ALSO : Kaspersky launches eSIM store for seamless global travel
Rumble’s lawsuit, filed last August, accuses the defendants of violating antitrust law by scheming to deprive the video platform of ad revenue. However, the defendants counter that their actions were separate decisions not to advertise on Rumble, not a coordinated effort. They note that Rumble failed to allege that Diageo ever advertised on the platform or that GroupM ever facilitated advertising on it.
The World Federation of Advertisers, WPP, and Diageo reiterate that Rumble’s allegations are insufficient to establish collusion. “At base, Rumble is left with nothing more than the claim that defendants’ participation in GARM is enough to allege an agreement,” they argue. They also cite a 1988 case from the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled that a trade association “is not by its nature a ‘walking conspiracy.'”
The defendants also dispute Rumble’s claim that the alleged agreement affected business in Texas, arguing that this assertion is both conclusory and irrelevant to the key jurisdictional issue. They note that WPP Media is the only defendant that had clients based in Texas, and argue that an agency doesn’t transact business in a state merely because some of its clients are in that state.
The judge has not yet indicated when she will issue a decision on the motion to dismiss.
Discover more from The Industry
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
