A House Judiciary Interim Report on "Collusion in the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM)" alleges corporate collusion to "boycott, demonetize, and censor disfavored viewpoints." Herrish Patel, President of Unilever USA, and Christian Juhl, Global Chief Executive Officer of GroupM, testified before the Committee on Wednesday morning, hours after the report was released. Both men are members of GARM's Steer Team, a board of directors. GroupM is the world's largest media buying agency. Unilever USA owns some of the world's household names in consumer products, including Dove, Ben and Jerry's, Degree, Helman's, Klondike, and many others. Ben Shapiro, Conservative pundit and founder of The Daily Wire, and Spencer Waller, Director of the Institute for Consumer Antitrust Studies at Loyola University in Chicago, also testified.
GARM was created by the World Federation of Advertisers (WFA) in 2019. WFA is a progressive entity with massive influence. According to the Judiciary report, "GARM quickly amassed tremendous market power in the advertising industry." Its members are "closely involved in day-to-day operations," and its members "include every major advertising holding company in its ranks."
Large corporations selling well-known household name brands to 98% of the world's consumers rely upon GARM's uniform framework of standards. As such, GARM plays a considerable role in guiding and influencing decisions on ad placement by its member corporations. GARM sets the standards that help these member corporations decide where it is safe and profitable to place their ads, all in the name of "reducing the availability and monetization of harmful content online." Those decisions significantly affect the kind of content digital consumers see and hear. GARM asserts its activities are apolitical and well-intentioned.
The Judiciary report points out that "GARM disclaims involvement in "content moderation," which is the "practice and determination of what content is appropriate for hosting[,] recommend[ing,] and [making] availab[le] on [a] platform." GARM admits, however, that "[c]ontent monetization and moderation are inextricably linked, and lapses in moderation put advertising and advertisers at risk[.]" In other words, GARM's monetization work has the effect of influencing what content appears online."
The report also contends GARM is "anti-democratic" in its views of fundamental American freedoms, like freedom of speech, by quoting its co-founder and leader, Rob Rakowitz:
"For an organization reliant on speech and persuasion in advertising, GARM appears to have anti-democratic views of fundamental American freedoms. In discussing his views on freedom of speech, GARM's leader and co-founder, Rob Rakowitz, has expressed frustration with an "extreme global interpretation of the U.S. Constitution" and complained about using "' principles for governance' and applying them as literal law from 230 years ago (made by white men exclusively)." With this worldview, GARM pushed what it called "uncommon collaboration" to "rise above individual commercial interest[.]"
According to the judiciary's investigation, GARM members allegedly colluded to cut Twitter's revenue after Elon Musk acquired the platform. According to the documents procured by the Committee, a Danish energy company sought advice from GARM on whether to continue placing paid ads on Twitter.
According to the report, Rakowitz not only denied wrongdoing but also denied documentary evidence during his closed-door testimony. The report contains documentary evidence and emails with Rakowitz and others on GARM's recommendations and policy decisions.
The GARM Framework Sets the Tone for Advertising Decisions
Some of its standards are set to address harmful content about which almost everyone agrees, like child pornography or terrorism. No corporation wants its ads to be placed alongside that kind of content. However, according to the report, in other cases, "GARM appears to have anti-democratic views of fundamental American freedoms," and that comes through in some of their standards or "Framework," as depicted in part below in the GARM: Brand Safety Floor+ Suitability Framework from the House Judiciary investigation. In other words, through its standards, GARM censors opinions and content that is harmful, but the perceived harm seems to be partisan.
This "Suitability Framework," especially in the last two content categories, is highly subjective and nebulous. Moreover, GARM and its Steer Team set the narrative for acceptable content when advising on ad placement. Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) opened the hearing by stating that GARM and its board members are effectively operating as a cartel, violating antitrust laws and the Sherman Act:
"The Sherman Act makes anticompetitive restraints of trade illegal. This includes coordinated actions that harm consumers by limiting the choices available to Americans. That is exactly what the World Federation of Advertisers (WFA), the Global Alliance for Responsible Media, and every company that is a member of these organization organizations has done over the last five years. They came together and agreed to limit advertising on certain platforms and news outlets that millions–millions of Americans choose to read, watch, and listen to. How did they do this? WFA members represent roughly 90% of the global advertising spend.
They collude to make sure that no other advertisers support any news outlets, platforms, or creators that these massive companies don't agree with. And these people do not like conservatives. Don't take my word for it. Here's what employees at Group M said to GARM's leader about Fox News, the Daily Wire, and Breitbart News. Employees from Group M said, 'They hated their ideology–that employee was discussing how to pull advertising from these news outlets.'"
In his opening remarks, ranking member Nadler said the claim that GARM was targeting conservatives amounted to conspiracy theory and the GOP-led investigation was "wast[ing] taxpayer dollars." Nadler continued, "Republicans are so determined to prove the conspiracy theory that conservative content is being censored that they will do anything, including launching a fruitless and harmful investigation to bully companies that do not hold their views. I hope that we will get back to doing the serious work for the American people very soon, not continue to waste taxpayer dollars on fishing expeditions designed to help hate and criminal activity spread on and offline."
Wednesday's Testimony: Juhl, Patel, Waller, and Shapiro
Juhl and Patel denied participating in a scheme to target conservative media and platforms by stating that a minority of the advertising goes on media or news platforms. Patel stated, "Only 20% of our U.S. advertising spending goes to social media platforms, and less than 1% goes to digital news." He further stated that in 2020, Unilever "pulled back" from social media because of its "polarizing content"—content that "would not serve the brands or add value." He stressed that Unilever alone makes decisions about where to place its advertising. Patel also insisted that the framework used by GARM is "apolitical" and "applies to harmful content regardless of any political perspective."
When asked repeatedly by Shapiro and others to provide examples of having also targeted Left-leaning content, Juhl failed to provide a single example. The truth is that in the interest of setting uniform standards of engagement to help guide ad placement, GARM, and its Steer Team have set standards that are subjective and are, in some cases, weighted against conservative content they deem inappropriate. These are the same tactics we repeatedly see from partisan partnerships, all under the guise of keeping digital spaces "free and safe." The Twitter Files laid bare the many ways political bias dictated whose voices were amplified and which platforms would be demonetized.
Juhl's testimony focused mainly on the importance of being strategic when spending advertising dollars. Brands "want reliable environments." An excerpt from Juhl's testimony speaks to those concerns with recent real-world examples:
"In 2017, news outlets reported that some of the world's biggest companies' advertisements were unwittingly being placed next to content as extreme as propaganda for ISIS. Unsurprisingly, concern from consumers and clients was significant. Brands also had to contend with reports of Russian troll farms working to disrupt presidential elections. And, most recently, brands had to develop advertising strategies in the context of a pandemic that divided Americans. In response to these issues and broader consumer sentiment, advertisers have placed a growing emphasis on brand suitability and accountability. Brands consistently inform us that they do not want to advertise next to hot-button or divisive content. They want reliable environments."
Waller, the subject matter expert recruited to talk about antitrust law, testified that the activities undertaken by GARM "do not appear to be a cartel," mainly because cartels "normally involve an agreement between competitors (sometimes assisted by third parties) to fix prices, rig bids, limit production, divide markets, diminish quality, or interfere with innovation." Instead, he pointed out that GARM is more like a "diverse coalition of companies, who for the most part do not compete with each other...and do not affect the price, production, or quality of the goods and services sold by the members of GARM." Waller also said that the advertising agencies have a choice as to whether they will adopt the criteria set forth by the GARM framework on where to place their advertising. Waller believes GARM is not violating antitrust law set forth in "leading cases."
Waller was narrow in his scope of opinion and failed to acknowledge the harm to conservative outlets like The Daily Wire. GARM's framework can no doubt influence advertisers focused on image and profitability. So, while it may not be an instance of direct targeting, the metrics are sometimes set against specific political points of view. The report quotes a 2004 lawsuit that counters Waller's argument:
"Twenty years ago, the Supreme Court described collusion as "the supreme evil of antitrust [.] Today, this description remains true. If collusion among powerful corporations capable of collectively demonetizing, and in effect eliminating, certain views and voices are allowed to continue, the ability of countless American consumers to choose what to read and listen to or even have their speech or writing reach other Americans will be destroyed. Federal antitrust laws do not diminish because GARM or its members claim to have good intentions."
Ben Shapiro spoke about his experience with the practical harms to his reach and profitability from GARM's interventions. Shapiro focused on GARM's standards, as evidenced in its framework referenced above. GARM members prevent the dissemination of information they do not approve of with their "standards," especially when it concerns social and politically charged issues. The mumbo-jumbo language about social issues in the chart above seems purposefully opaque. Misinformation is what they determine misinformation to be.
GARM's framework gives the organization a more nuanced and subliminal influence. It gives GARM plausible deniability about its intention to censor or suppress content by hiding behind "standards." In reality, GARM and its members act as gatekeepers of information, significantly affecting the traffic and revenue for content creators like Shapiro. Shapiro explained in his testimony.
Social media companies react to incentive structures, including threats. They have responded by adopting the standards of third-party left-wing informational safety groups like the Global Alliance for Responsible Media or GARM. GARM purportedly sets brand safety standards, 'objective' standards by which advertisers and platforms can supposedly determine just what sort of content ought to be deemed safe for advertising.
In reality, GARM acts as a cartel. Its members account for 90% of ad spending in the United States, almost a trillion dollars. In other words, if you're not getting ad dollars from GARM members, it's nearly impossible to run an ad-based business. And if you're not following their preferred political narratives, the ones that Kara Swisher and Dianne Feinstein would follow, you will not be deemed brand-safe. Your business will be throttled. We had Daily Wire have experienced this first hand."
In 2017, after Senator Feinstein made her threats to bring the weight of government down on social media platforms, Daily Wire YouTube channels saw a 1000% increase in content enforcements over a two-year period. Since 2021, after Democrat officials further turned up the heat on social media companies, my personal Facebook page has seen an over 80% drop in impressions. Or take Joe Rogan, when Joe said that he had taken Ivermectin after getting COVID. White House press secretary Jen Saki pressured Spotify to take action, stating, 'We want every platform to be doing more to call out misinformation and disinformation while also uplifting accurate information.' Spotify complied. Spotify, of course, works with GARM."
Below is one of the emails provided in the report that shows how GARM thinks about content on Spotify. The email discusses Rogan's alleged harmful opinions that could affect Spotify's brand and profitability. It also references Neil Young's request to have his music removed from Spotify because of Rogan's views on the COVID-19 vaccine.
An excerpt from the report explains the context of GARM's decisions about Spotify content below. Given the evidence in the report, GARM's behavior is more invasive than they would like us to believe. They are concerned about content tailored to "the individual using that platform," and the ad "might appear adjacent to the content of which the company does not approve." The report explains:
In his email on January 27, 2022, Mr. Barone informed his colleagues at GroupM that "GroupM does not buy Joe Rogan, and therefore we had no client exposure[.]" Nonetheless, Mr. Barone wrote to his colleagues that he notified Spotify that even if GroupM clients do not buy advertisements on Mr. Rogan's podcast, the podcast's content put all of Spotify's advertising with GroupM clients at risk. Mr. Barone also told his colleagues that he warned Spotify that it would "conduct a complete Trust & Safety review of the Spotify platform and policies" and that GroupM "will begin that process immediately[.]" In other words, GroupM knew there was no brand safety concern because it did not buy advertisements on Mr. Rogan's podcast, but it still sought to silence Mr. Rogan's views anyway.
The testimony and the Judiciary report point to efforts on the part of WFA and GARM to make "artificial changes in what would otherwise be a free market for advertising space to reach consumers." All Americans should understand that interventions like these are not benign or innocuous. Contrary to what Jerry Nadler and Eric Swalwell would have you believe, these are the very signs and signals to which Americans should direct their attention. When unseen forces can hide or bury the content you see, the market of ideas is no longer free. It is truly unAmerican.
