A federal investigation into Media Matters for America has intensified, with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) demanding records that could shed light on whether the group played a central role in pressuring advertisers to pull out of Elon Musk’s X platform.
The request for documents centers on whether the organization coordinated with other media watchdogs or industry coalitions to engineer a widespread boycott of X following Musk’s acquisition of the platform in 2022.
According to the investigative demand, the FTC wants access to communications between Media Matters and groups such as the World Federation of Advertisers and its now-disbanded Global Alliance for Responsible Media.
The FTC’s letter, which represents a formal escalation of its inquiry, raises the possibility of unlawful collusion among groups that evaluate so-called “misinformation” and “hate speech.”
Musk has accused these organizations of working in tandem to drive advertisers off X by portraying the platform as unsafe for brands, claims that underpin multiple lawsuits filed by X against Media Matters and others.
After Media Matters released a 2023 report claiming that corporate ads were being shown next to antisemitic content, companies including Apple, Disney, IBM, and Paramount quickly distanced themselves from X.
But Musk’s team fired back, saying the report relied on deceptive methods to create an artificial scenario and mislead advertisers. X’s attorneys argued that the content was curated in a manner no ordinary user would encounter.
The fallout didn’t stop at corporate withdrawals. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton opened an investigation into Media Matters (though a judge shut it down), citing concerns over fraudulent or unlawful conduct tied to its campaign against X.
A federal judge in Texas gave Musk’s defamation lawsuit against the group the green light last year. Media Matters has since filed its own case in California, arguing that it’s being targeted for its journalism and that Musk is attempting to punish dissent through legal harassment.
Media Matters president Angelo Carusone responded to the FTC’s latest move by denouncing to Reuters what he described as an abuse of government authority: “The Trump administration has been defined by naming right-wing media figures to key posts and abusing the power of the federal government to bully political opponents and silence critics. It’s clear that’s exactly what’s happening here, given Media Matters’ history of holding those same figures to account. These threats won’t work; we remain steadfast to our mission.”
While the FTC itself has not commented, the agency’s chairman, Andrew Ferguson, previously voiced strong opinions about advertiser boycotts targeting X.
Long before taking his current post, Ferguson noted that advertisers appeared to be engaging in what he called “concerted refusals to deal,” pointing to potential violations under the Sherman Act. He reiterated in a separate statement that “we must prosecute any unlawful collusion between online platforms, and confront advertiser boycotts which threaten competition among those platforms.”
As part of its investigation, the FTC is now examining whether any coordination occurred between Media Matters and other anti-misinformation groups. The probe also includes a review of internal material tied to the lawsuit filed by Musk’s X, where the company alleges that Media Matters knowingly manipulated X’s algorithm to fabricate screenshots and mislead the public about ad placement.
While Media Matters denies all allegations and maintains its reporting reflects genuine brand safety risks, the stakes continue to rise. The group claims it has spent millions defending itself against what it views as punitive legal attacks. Musk, meanwhile, hasn’t limited his legal efforts to advocacy groups. Last year, X filed suit against the World Federation of Advertisers and a collection of major brands, arguing that their coordinated pullout constituted an antitrust violation. Those named in the lawsuit have asked for dismissal, asserting that their decisions were based on legitimate business concerns.