As per the suit, Check My Ads, while purporting to combat the "global disinformation epidemic," has been involved in its own campaign to censor, silence, and cancel speech by defaming people they are ideologically opposed to—and they do it by attempting to persuade advertisers to leave platforms, like Rumble.
It didn't just start recently. The lawsuit alleges that before they started Check My Ads, Defendant Jammi launched an anonymous Twitter campaign with an anonymous account to pressure companies to stop advertising on Breitbart. They developed the playbook of demonetization to censor content they were ideologically opposed to. However, they used lies and falsehoods to do it.
And so began the vicious cycle of big tech banning and censoring content creators based on partisan politics... It obviously continues to this day.
But, as per the lawsuit, Rumble hasn't caved to the pressure. As a content-neutral platform, they provide a "safe space" for creators, open discourse (can concur), and a commitment to free speech. Rumble supports small content creators—and as a result, there is a broad spectrum of creators with varying viewpoints on the platform.
They built from the ground up, created their own tech infrastructure, and did so to avoid dependence on third parties for critical services where possible (ala. not making the same mistakes as Parler). They don't rely on Google for ad revenue, building out their own platform for advertisers to insulate from Big Tech.
And they haven't kept it a secret. From when they were founded through the initial public offering in 2022, they have been outspoken about their commitment to free speech and their mission to protect a free and open internet. Investors have paid attention to this, and as of 10/23/23, their market cap was $1.44b
The free speech/independent of Big Tech mission at Rumble has been one of the major draws for investors and advertisers to an extent. It is a core of Rumble's mission and its DNA. It is very important to them and to the people who take part on the platform, as investors, or as advertisers.
So, Jammi publicly decried that they were shifting their sights to Rumble. They despise what Rumble stands for. If this isn't evidence of malicious intent I am not sure what is. As per the complaint, they launched a disinformation campaign to demonetize Rumble, and they bragged about it.
And, Jammi just kept going. Seemingly emboldened and impervious to accountability, Jammi (using the same playbook discussed earlier) made numerous false statements about Rumble's business practices, ad placements, revenue streams, and overall financial health. She did this to pressure advertisers to drop Rumble, and we know because she told us.
Rumble gets less than 1% of ad revenue from Google: They falsely accused Rumble of lying to its shareholders and the SEC about its financial health and sources of ad revenue. They've repeatedly said that Rumble is primarily monetized by and wholly dependent on Google Ads. That is inconsistent with Rumble's publicly stated mission.
They did this repeatedly on X. Over and over and over.
As recently as September of this year—with instructions for advertisers to block Rumble from their campaigns...
And in October...
Defendants manufacturing and publishing this narrative is meant to harm Rumble's reputation with advertisers, shareholders, and investors by suggesting that Rumble is lying to them about a material financial risk—that Rumble's business would be devastated if Google Ads dropped them.
And Jammi et al should have known this, because filings are public. As Rumble transitioned to its own ad serve, its reliance on Google Ads steadily declined...
And as of today? Its reliance stands so small it isn't even reportable... Meanwhile, the last posts from defendants were as late as October.
Rumblevideo responded directly to Jammi about her false and defamatory statements correcting the record, and she affirmed and acknowledged the accuracy of the statements. (In my opinion, this is the death knell for Jammi...)
But, unfortunately, as is usually the case, following the false statements, Rumble lost market value. $185m dollars worth of it. And they have been forced to expend a lot of funds on outside legal counsel and PR firms to try to mitigate the damage the lies have done.
And so, Rumble is suing. And as a group committed to dispelling so-called "misinformation," they should appreciate the truth.
Here is where we learn that they work directly with Media Matters for America—Media Matters also published a story about this.
And here it is—the Media Matters/X playbook implemented against Rumble—Engineering algorithms and fake ad placements to pressure advertisers to remove themselves from the equation. This is the way they do it. It is, quite literally, evil.
Don't tweet false things at Dan Bongino...
And she did it again...
And again...
And again...
And that is very clearly defamatory... "Defendants’ false claims about Rumble’s ad revenue imply—as Defendants intended—that Rumble is susceptible to a material financial risk (i.e., the risk that Google may decide to pull nearly all Rumble’s ad revenue) that simply does not exist. As Rumble’s public securities filings show, since 2021, the percentage of revenue Rumble derived from Google Ads has fallen dramatically. In the first three quarters of 2021, revenue from Google Ads was about 86% of Rumble’s total revenue. In October 2023, it was less than 1%.
You get the picture... "Defendants’ claims that Rumble is economically dependent on Google Ads and derives 90% of its ad revenue from Google are defamatory per se because they falsely impute to Rumble a characteristic and condition that is incompatible with the proper exercise of Rumble’s business, trade, mission, and brand. Since its inception, Rumble’s publicly stated mission has been to free itself—and its users—from the shackles of Big Tech’s censorship and dominance in the U.S. economy. (To that end, Rumble filed an antitrust lawsuit against Google in January 2021; that lawsuit is ongoing.) And that distinction has been a significant factor in Rumble’s economic success, including successfully going public in September 2022, because Rumble’s users, shareholders, and investors share Rumble’s commitment to independence from Big Tech"
The next section goes on to detail that Jammi et al. KNEW that their information was wrong, and they continued to maliciously parrot it anyway. There is proof they knew because she responded as such. Her further posts on X prove malicious intent...
This is one of the legal hurdles you need to cross to win in a case like this. IMHO, they cross that bar in spades.
They cross the bar in leaps and bounds...
Here is the remedy Rumble is seeking:
Beanz assessment: For far too long, organizations like this have been able to lie, defame, slander, and demonetize conservative thought and individuals they place a target on. I have been a victim of this myself. It is infuriating. They wish to strangle us monetarily and otherwise so that we cease to exist in the public square—because, in the marketplace of ideas, we win EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.
I am THRILLED to see the playbook discovered and attacked, FINALLY, after all of these years. I would have gone after them if I had had the funds. This is a SOLID case. Defamation is hard, but the hubris of these people serves it up on a silver platter. The tide is turning...
