FTC Turns Up the Heat on Media Matters in X Advertiser Boycott Controversy
The Federal Trade Commission isn’t letting the dust settle in the ongoing battle between Elon Musk’s X and watchdog groups. According to a recently surfaced document, the FTC has kicked off a detailed investigation into Media Matters for possible behind-the-scenes coordination to drive advertisers away from the platform. This is getting a lot of attention because X, formerly known as Twitter, has already launched lawsuits against both Media Matters and the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM), a heavyweight coalition under the World Federation of Advertisers.
The FTC’s spotlight is on whether Media Matters joined forces with other advocacy organizations to encourage a mass exodus of advertising dollars from X. The agency made an official civil investigative demand—which is basically an order to hand over communications with groups like GARM—hoping to uncover any signs of organized efforts designed to hurt X’s business after Elon Musk took over.
It’s not just about two sides trading accusations. The timing is telling. Musk’s turbulent relationship with the press and watchdogs has only gotten rockier since his high-profile acquisition in 2022. At the center is a push by FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson, who’s made it clear that he’s worried about any “unlawful collusion” that could threaten healthy competition in the social media world. The FTC wants to know: Did advocacy groups cross a legal line by teaming up to pressure brands like IBM, Apple, and Comcast’s Xfinity to pause their ads on X?
Behind the Legal and Moral Firestorm
The battle lines got sharper when Media Matters published research last year showing that big-name company ads were appearing next to anti-Semitic content on the platform. IBM, Apple, and Xfinity appeared on that list, raising immediate concerns for their brands. The story picked up even more steam after Musk himself endorsed a post that was widely condemned as promoting an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory. For many brands, that was a cue to back away from the platform, at least for a while.
Musk’s reaction was swift—and all about fighting back. His company filed lawsuits, arguing that Media Matters and GARM manipulated how ads were presented and essentially staged evidence to scare off advertisers. Their claim: if groups are artificially creating situations or collaborating secretly, that’s a business-crippling tactic, not just free speech.
Of course, Media Matters shot right back, brushing off the lawsuits as nothing more than legal intimidation and an attempt to silence critics. In their eyes, exposing the reality of what shows up on X is journalism, not sabotage. But now, with the FTC demanding all communications—yes, both internal group chats and emails with outside partners—the campaign to uncover what really happened is in full swing.
So why does this matter? What’s at stake isn’t just the reputation of a single platform or one watchdog group. The results could change how advocacy groups and social media companies fight, influence advertisers, and negotiate the gray space between public accountability and business interests. This case has broadened the debate on what counts as ethical activism versus anti-competitive behavior in the noisy, high-stakes world of social media advertising.