What they're not telling you: Authored by Jacki Thrapp via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours), The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and eight states secured a settlement on April 15 that will prevent three major advertising lawsuit-with-ftc.html" title="Major Advertising Agencies Settle Media Censorship Lawsuit With FTC" style="color:#1a1a1a;text-decoration:underline;text-decoration-style:dotted;font-weight:500;">agencies from engaging in unlawful media censorship. An American flag flies at the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) headquarters in Washington on Nov. Benoit Tessier/File Photo/Reuters The defendants Dentsu US, Inc., GroupM Worldwide LLC (doing business as WPP Media), and Publicis, Inc.
# THE TAKE This settlement is regulatory theater masquerading as accountability. The FTC extracted promises from advertising agencies about brand safety practices—the same practices that have quietly become a cartel mechanism to suppress disfavored publishers and control narrative flow. Let's be clear about what happened: major ad platforms built algorithmic blacklists targeting independent media outlets and creators, calling it "brand safety." The FTC's remedy? Voluntary disclosure standards. Meaningless. The real story the FTC won't touch: this wasn't censorship in the First Amendment sense. It was *market censorship*—private companies colluding to starve publishers of ad revenue. That's not a settlement issue; it's an antitrust problem. We're talking about concentrated gatekeepers using market power to determine which voices monetize and which don't. The eight state AGs grandstanding alongside the FTC won't change the structural problem: three or four platforms control where advertising dollars flow. Until we break that concentration, "settlements" are just expensive ink. Agencies will rebrand their blacklists, compliance departments will file reports nobody reads, and the architecture of algorithmic suppression stays intact. This is how regulatory capture looks in practice: enforcement that leaves power untouched.
What the Documents Show
will no longer enter into deals that require them to restrict working with certain clients , according to the settlement. “A coordinated group of woke, powerful individuals attempted to suppress that Constitutional right by manipulating ad agencies into sabotaging the reach, revenue, and credibility of conservative voices,” Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said in a statement released on April 15. The plaintiffs - including Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Montana, Nebraska, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia - alleged that censorship deals between ad agencies and companies had been happening in the background during the past decade , which limited rising voices in the alternative and online media space. The lawsuit accused some of the largest ad agencies of establishing brand-safety agreements that labeled content creators as “misinformation,” making them unable to receive ad revenue. The alleged brand-safety standards were part of a campaign to demonetize prominent figures in the conservative space such as Glenn Beck, Steve Bannon, and the late Charlie Kirk , according to court documents reviewed by the Epoch Times.
Follow the Money
The campaign allegedly attempted to censor and suppress content from Fox News Channel and X, formerly Twitter. “ This is a deeply disturbing violation of antitrust laws and our Constitution, ” Paxton added. “This was an egregious attempt to control public opinion and silence those who speak out against the liberal elites and powerful corporations. I will continue to lead the fight against viewpoint suppression and protect the speech of Americans from corrupt manipulation.” As part of the settlement, defendants also agreed to have a court-ordered monitor to make sure agencies are sticking with the agreement and no longer censoring political viewpoints. The defendants agreed not to enter into or enforce any deal that would limit their advertising spending on political or ideological viewpoints or DEI commitments. “ The ad agencies’ brand-safety conspiracy turned competition in the market for ad-buying services on its head ,” FTC Chairman Andrew N.
What Else We Know
Ferguson said in a statement on Wednesday. Ferguson added, “this unlawful collusion not only damaged our marketplace, but also distorted the marketplace of ideas by discriminating against speech and ideas that fell below the unlawfully agreed-upon floor.” Make sure to read our "How To [Read/Tip Off] Zero Hedge Without Attracting The Interest Of [Human Resources/The Treasury/Black Helicopters]" Guide It would be very wise of you to study our privacy policy and our (non)policy on conflicts / full disclosure . Here's our Cookie Policy .
Primary Sources
- Source: ZeroHedge
- Category: Corporate Watchdog
- Cross-reference independently — don't take our word for it.
Disclosure: NewsAnarchist aggregates from public records, API feeds (Federal Register, CourtListener, MuckRock, Hacker News), and independent media. AI-assisted synthesis. Always verify primary sources linked above.