A long-running effort by some of the worlds largest advertising conglomerates to choke off revenue to right-leaning media outlets has been halted by a federal court order, marking a significant setback for the progressive campaign to marginalize conservative speech through corporate pressure.
According to RedState, the ruling targets three of the biggest players in digital advertisingDentsu US, WPPs GroupM, and Publicisafter the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and a coalition of eight state attorneys general accused them of coordinating so?called brand safety standards to block ads from appearing on disfavored content. The companies have agreed to settlements, without admitting wrongdoing, that are still subject to final court approval but already bar them from continuing the alleged collusion that effectively starved certain conservative outlets of ad dollars.
The mechanics of the scheme were simple but devastating: when the dominant ad buyers collectively decide which sites are off?limits, those sites are effectively cut off from a major share of the digital advertising market. The complaint traces the coordination back to 2018, when the firms allegedly used two industry bodiesthe American Association of Advertising Agencies Advertiser Protection Bureau and the World Federation of Advertisers Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM)to craft a shared Brand Safety Floor that declared entire categories of content ineligible for advertising.
Early drafts of those standards, according to the filing, cast a remarkably wide net over core political and cultural issues. The targeted topics included abortion, gun control, capital punishment, immigration, universal healthcare, and the Green New Dealsubjects at the heart of Americas policy debates and ones where conservative perspectives frequently challenge progressive orthodoxy. When that sweep still did not satisfy the activists driving the process, the drafters added the catch?all category of misinformation, a label the complaint says was deployed in ways that throttled ad revenue for specific right?of?center outlets such as Breitbart, Charlie Kirk, Glenn Beck, Steve Bannon, Fox News, and the social media platform X.
As the complaint puts it, The complaint argues the arrangement harmed advertisers by eliminating competition over brand-safety tools and, ultimately, 'hampered debate on some of the most consequential and hotly debated subjects of public life' by demonetizing conservative outlets." In other words, the alleged conspiracy did not merely punish conservative publishers; it also deprived advertisers of a competitive marketplace for brand?safety services and narrowed the range of viewpoints available in the public square.
Regulators contend that the participants understood exactly what they were doing and worked to keep their coordination hidden from scrutiny. In October 2021, GARMs initiative lead sent a telling warning to executives, invoking a famous movie line to underscore the need for secrecy: "The first rule of Fight Club is: You do not talk about Fight Club. The second rule of Fight Club is: You do not talk about Fight Club."
That message drew a revealing response from an IPG executive, who told the full group that they all need to huddle and work out what the advertising industry wants." In another internal communication, a GroupM email described GARM as a venue where participants could be "check[] their competitive relationships at the door . . . while they are engaged in the brand safety discussion," language regulators say shows the companies knowingly set aside normal market competition to pursue a shared political and ideological agenda.
The power of such coordination lies in sheer scale. As of 2023, the so?called Big Six ad holding companies collectively controlled about $81 billion of the $155 billion in total U.S. media billings, giving them a 52 percent share of the market and the ability, when acting in concert, to deprive entire categories of websites of access to tens of billions in advertising with a single policy shift. That concentration of influence made the alleged brand safety regime a potent tool for enforcing progressive speech norms and punishing dissenting conservative voices without a single law being passed.
GARM itself formally dissolved in August 2024 after the U.S. House Judiciary Committee concluded its conduct was likely illegal, but the retreat appears to have been more cosmetic than substantive. Just four days after the dissolution, GroupM reportedly told business partners it would continue to follow GARMs standards, and by late 2024, industry communications showed participants waiting to see "where the political chips fall" before deciding whether to fully resume the coordinated effort.
Under the new settlement, Dentsu US, GroupM, and Publicis are now explicitly barred from entering into any agreements that restrict ad spending based on political viewpoints, journalistic standards, or diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) commitments. They are also prohibited from relying on shared exclusion lists built on those criteria and will be overseen by independent monitors for five years, with court injunctions remaining in force for a decade.
The case, brought jointly by the FTC and attorneys general from eight states, requires each firm to make its own independent decisions about where ads run, without resorting to shared standards or coordinated blacklists that can be weaponized against disfavored viewpoints. That shift, if enforced rigorously, could restore at least some measure of ideological neutrality to a digital ad ecosystem that has increasingly been used as a pressure point by progressive activists seeking to silence conservative media.
Reaction on the right was swift and pointed, reflecting long?standing concerns about woke capitalism being deployed to sidestep constitutional protections and punish political opponents through private power. Will Hild, Executive Director of Consumers Research, hailed the development as "a major blow to the coordination among woke entities to suppress the reach of political views they disagree with," while Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton was even more direct: "A coordinated group of woke, powerful individuals attempted to suppress that Constitutional right by manipulating ad agencies into sabotaging the reach, revenue, and credibility of conservative voices. This was an egregious attempt to control public opinion."
Login