The all-Republican Federal Trade Commission agreed to approve a $13.5 billion ad merger if it includes a ban on steering ad dollars away from platforms or publishers based on “political or ideological viewpoints.” The order, which was reported by The New York Times earlier this month, would prevent ad giant Omnicom from wholesale avoiding platforms like X based on their political viewpoints without explicit direction from its advertiser customers. X lost advertisers in 2023 after placing ads next to pro-Nazi content.
On Monday, the agency published a proposed consent order that it says would “resolve antitrust concerns” over Omnicom’s acquisition of Interpublic Group, which it says are the “third- and fourth-largest media buying advertising agencies in the U.S.” Under the proposed terms, the newly-merged company could not direct or deny advertisers’ spending on any given platform based on that website’s political or ideological views, or those of the content the ads might run alongside. Advertisers who work with Omnicom can still directly request that the media buying agency avoid certain publishers based on political viewpoints.
The FTC commonly places conditions on companies seeking to merge through consent orders to prevent anticompetitive effects, but this unusual provision addresses a particular complaint of congressional Republicans and former “First Buddy” Elon Musk, whose company X (formerly Twitter) claimed advertisers engaged in an “illegal boycott” by pulling ads off the platform in the wake of reports on far-right content and Musk’s own promotion of antisemitic conspiracies. The FTC is investigating news outlet Media Matters for encouraging advertisers to drop X; Media Matters sued in response today.
One of Musk’s primary targets was the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM), a voluntary initiative organized by the World Federation of Advertisers that helped companies avoid advertising against illegal or otherwise harmful non-”brand safe” content. GARM disbanded due to limited resources in the wake of the antitrust suit from X.
The FTC mentions GARM in its complaint against the Omnicom merger, saying allowing two major companies to merge could have a similar impact.. “With one fewer major competitor in the Media Buying Services industry as a result of the Acquisition, the remaining competitors have fewer impediments to coordinating the placement of advertisements, monitoring one another, and punishing one another for taking actions that harm them collectively,” the complaint says.
The Supreme Court has previously protected the right to boycott. But in a statement, Republican Chair Andrew Ferguson claimed the provision would not infringe on advertisers’ First Amendment rights. “The decree goes to great lengths to avoid interfering with the free, regular course of business between marketing firms and their customers,” Ferguson says. “Omnicom-IPG may choose with whom it does business and follow any lawful instruction from its customers as to where and how to advertise. No one will be forced to have their brand or their ads appear in venues and among content they do not wish.”
The order, however, says Omnicom can’t maintain any policy that “declines to deal with Advertisers based on political or ideological viewpoints” or “directs Advertisers’ advertising spend based on the Media Publisher’s political or ideological viewpoints.”
Interpublic CEO Philippe Krakowski called it a “notable step forward” in the merger process, and Omnicom CEO John Wren said he anticipated closing the deal in the second half of 2025.
The proposed order was approved by Ferguson and Commissioner Melissa Holyoak, with Commissioner Mark Meador recused from the matter. President Donald Trump previously attempted to fire the agency’s two Democratic commissioners and has not yet nominated new ones, leaving the typically bipartisan and five-member agency in the hands of three Republicans.
Update, June 23rd: Added statements from Omnicom and Interpublic CEOs.
Read the full article here
