Probably less worried about losing the suit than ending up like Harvard and Perkins Coïe. This is so hilariously like mob rule.
I wonder if the additional ad revenue X gets by suing companies that aren't advertising with them will be enough to cover the expenses of suing companies that aren't advertising with them.
Interesting move from such a self-proclaimed champion of meritocracy. Especially rich buddies helping push companies into capitulating.
> Activist investor Nelson Peltz, who has been a Unilever board member since 2022 and has had a close relationship with Musk, helped Unilever negotiate its deal
In Soviet Muskland, you do not send overdue accounts to collections. Collections sends overdue accounts to you.
After Musk's purchase of twitter, I recall Musk making claims that there was a lot of bot traffic, and the numbers that had been used for valuation purposes were inflated. Even if companies weren't afraid of their brand being tainted by being shown alongside distasteful or offensive content, or by being on the platform of a highly divisive political figure who seems to create daily PR crises, isn't there still a basic question of "how many of the impressions that we buy are shown to actual humans?"
According to Elon Musk: "Disney (...) are the world’s biggest example of go woke, go broke" Does this mean that there is legal precedent to force him and others to buy their new movies?
[dead]
"People close to X said the platform pressed vendors that were supplying it with goods or services to spend money on advertising. X is a customer of Amazon Web Services, its cloud-computing unit, and had past-due bills for that. X used those unpaid bills as leverage during negotiations, according to people familiar with the matter."
So Elon doesn't pay his bills either. Not surprising. I wish Amazon just cut services until bills paid, see who actually has leverage in that situation when nothing operates to run ads on and the cesspool can't spread.