US judge tosses Rumble lawsuit claiming advertising boycott

By Mike Scarcella

Aug 13 (Reuters) - A U.S. judge on Wednesday dismissed online video-sharing and internet-hosting company Rumble’s RUM.O lawsuit accusing spirits maker Diageo DGE.L and other advertisers of conspiring to withhold ad spending on its platform, as the same court weighs a similar case lodged by billionaire Elon Musk’s social media company X.

In her ruling, U.S. District Judge Jane Boyle in Dallas said Texas federal court was not the proper forum for Rumble’s lawsuit against Diageo and advertising and marketing agency WPP, which are both based in England, and Brussels-based World Federation of Advertisers.

Boyle’s ruling did not address the merits of the lawsuit filed last year by Florida-based Rumble, which hosts U.S. President Donald Trump's Truth Social.

The judge also said it was an “open question” whether her Texas court was the appropriate forum for a related lawsuit that X filed last year against the advertising federation and other company defendants.

Rumble and two lawyers representing the company did not immediately respond to requests for comment, and neither did World Federation of Advertisers and Diageo. WPP declined to comment. X did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The defendants in both lawsuits have denied they had an agreement to withhold advertising spending on Rumble.

Rumble’s case focused on a “brand-safety standards” initiative by the advertising federation called the Global Alliance for Responsible Media.

Rumble accused members of the alliance, which lasted until last year, of illegally boycotting platforms that did not comply with those standards.

In a court filing in February, Diageo and the other defendants countered that “there are perfectly good non-boycott reasons why defendants and others have chosen not to advertise on Rumble, which prides itself on lax content moderation and brand-safety measures.”

The defendants told the court that Rumble’s lawsuit was an attempt to force them to do business with the platform despite competitive reasons not to do so, and that Rumble was trying to “weaponize the antitrust laws to create that business relationship.”

They also argued the lawsuit “has nothing to do with Texas.”

The case is Rumble v. World Federation of Advertisers, Diageo, WPP ad GroupM, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, No. 7:24-cv-00115-O.

For plaintiff: John Sullivan of S|L Law; and Brandon Kressin of Kressin Powers

For WFA: David Miller, William Snyder and Charles Elder of Bradley Arant Boult Cummings

For WPP: Steven Lehotsky of Lehotsky Keller Cohn

For Diageo: D. Bruce Hoffman of Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton; and Amber Rogers of Hunton Andrews Kurth

Read more:

Media Matters sues to block FTC probe over Musk's X boycott claims

Google defeats Rumble’s antitrust lawsuit over video sharing market

Advertisers ask US judge to dismiss lawsuit by Musk’s X over ad spending

Musk’s X reaches deal to drop Twitch from lawsuit over ad spending