Orsted hits back at Musk's X in 'ad boycott conspiracy' lawsuit

Orsted has hit back in a lawsuit brought against it and other corporates by Elon Musk’s X over an alleged conspiracy by the Danish renewables giant, Shell and other corporates to boycott advertising on the social media platform due to its increasingly toxic image.

X filed the antitrust lawsuit against Orsted and a clutch of household names – including toy company Lego, food giants Mars and Unilever and social media platform Pinterest – in a Texas district court last August.

The lawsuit, which also named the World Federation of Advertisers (WFA) and the Global Alliance for Responsible Media, alleges the respondents conspired in an “illegal boycott” of advertising on X over concerns about its owner and harmful content.

In its filing last month, Orsted argued that the lawsuit against it was brought based on “virtually non-existent jurisdictional allegations” and should be thrown out.

Musk, also the owner of electric vehicle maker and energy storage group Tesla and SpaceX, is a highly controversial figure. Long known for his social media spats and increasingly far-right sympathies, Musk bought what was then Twitter for $44bn in 2023.

Its value promptly dropped like a stone, hitting as little as $10bn, although it has since reportedly rebounded to its 2023 valuation. X’s UK subsidiary revealed this year that its revenues plummeted 66% after Musk took over, mainly due to corporates cutting advertising due to “concerns about brand safety and/or content moderation.”

More recently, Musk’s political association with US President Donald Trump has made the businessman – and his businesses – even more toxic in some quarters, as evidenced by attacks on Tesla cars and dealerships across the US this year.

Musk last year told advertisers to “go f*** yourself” if they wanted to “blackmail me with money” over their concerns. In a post on X when the lawsuit was filed, he added: “We tried peace for 2 years, now it is war.”

Orsted argued in its recent filing that it is a “traditional European parent company” with no corporate offices, employees or bank accounts in the US, nor any sales, manufacturing or marketing activities.

X has instead sought to establish jurisdiction based on an “alleged group boycott conspiracy and supposed agreement to exchange competitively sensitive information among competing advertisers,” said Orsted.

Orsted, which is majority owned by the Danish state and counts Norway’s state-owned oil giant Equinor as a 10% shareholder, said its employees “never participated in the WFA or any of its initiatives or subcommittees and Orsted A/S had no responsibility for the decision to withhold advertising spend from the X platform.”

X had argued that Orsted, through “one or more wholly owned American subsidiaries,” holds “substantial investments” in the US, including in wind farms located in Texas.

Orsted countered that these wind farms “are owned by two indirect and partially owned subsidiaries” – Western Trail Wind and Lockett Windfarm – that “operate independently.”

“Contrary to X’s false assertion that Orsted A/S ‘transacts substantial business in this District,’” Orsted said it “has no business presence in this District or anywhere else in the United States.”

Succinctly put, the Danish developer said it is “manifestly not ‘at home’ in Texas.”