You can criticize X's push on the legal front forcing advertisers to spend more money on the platform all you want, but apparently, it is working. At least in some capacity.

Late last week, Unilever-one of the brands X named in its latest court filing against the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM)-announced an agreement with X on a new ad partnership, taking it out of X's court push.
So, of course, X, still suing GARM and several big brands, will now ease up on Univeler in its proceedings, while it's also secured expanded ad spend from the company.

So, again, while many have laughed at X for suing brands for making the decision not to advertise in the app, it does seem to have had some effect.

In summary, in August X brought a lawsuit against GARM and its mother organisation, the World Federation of Advertisers (WFA), as well as certain members of GARM, alleging that X has been subject to "a group boycott by competing advertisers of one of the most popular social media platforms in the United States.".

X argues that GARM conspired to tell brands not to run ads on X on the basis of political ideology, not on its so-called brand safety grounds. And because the GARM constituents account for 90% of ad spend in the US, X's legal argument in a suit still pending, is that GARM wields tremendous influence and can effectively stifle any speech it doesn't like by requiring its constituents to sever their business relationships with a platform.

The evidence here is fairly inconclusive (GARM will argue its recommendations were predicated on concerns about changing moderation standards at the app), and GARM has long been regarded as the top body for pushing platforms to adequately police hate speech and the like. But X is seeking damages based on the case it is asserting, that GARM acts on the whim of its more important members, rather than according to its publicly stated brand safety objectives.

Besides X, Mars Inc., CVS Health and Orsted are other massive brands included in the X complaint.

The fact that Unilever is continuing to renew the deal with X means there's at least a little something to be said for the case from the perspective of big brands, and X's legal filing is, at the very least, correct that market forces dictate success or failure in either direction of online ad platforms—in other words, they'll fail without offering brand safety, with or without GARM.

It is impossible to say how the case will be received by a jury, but GARM has ceased all activities pending a verdict in order to raise money to cover its own defense against Elon and Co.
The end result might squelch further fights to X's moderation approach, which, according to reports, is allowing more hate speech and abuse to stay in the app. On the other hand, if advertisers are going to be where some of the real user growth happens, or if they see their ads running side by side with offensive material in the app, then so be it.

Reportedly, ad revenue is down by about 50% since Elon Musk bought the app, and is still sinking: user numbers are continuing to fall, and Musk continues to amplify divisive political opinions in the app-about his own and those of others. Regulatory orders to remove recommendations against X ads might be the first step to getting its ad business back in the right direction, but I'd be surprised if this ends up being the thing that clears the way for a major reversal of its ad business.