Supporting Statement Coca-Cola is a global brand with immense influence and ad-buying power. It should be advertising in ways that support its
competitive interests and build its reputation for serving its diverse customers.
But recent reports have shown that it colluded with the world’s largest advertising buyers, agencies, industry associations, and social media platforms
through the Global Alliance for Responsible Media1
to demonetize platforms, podcasts, news outlets, and others for expressing disfavored political and
religious viewpoints.
A product of the World Federation of Advertisers, GARM was formed in 2019 and quickly amassed tremendous market power. WFA members represent
about 90% of global advertising, spending nearly a trillion dollars annually.2
GARM’s express mission was to “do more to address harmful and misleading media environments,” specifically “hate speech, bullying and
disinformation,” all under the guise of “brand safety.”3
GARM leader Rob Rakowitz explained that the “whole issue bubbling beneath the surface” of the
advertising industry and digital platforms is the “extreme global interpretation of the US Constitution.”4
GARM graded platforms on how much they censored using the above terms as well as terms like “insensitive” or “irresponsible” treatment of “debated
sensitive social issues.”5
The 2024 Viewpoint Diversity Business Index6
found that 76% of the largest tech and finance companies have similarly vague
and subjective terms. These terms encourage companies—and activists like GARM—to restrict service for arbitrary and discriminatory reasons and let
them avoid accountability by hiding censorship behind vague and shifting standards.
For its part, GARM promoted hyper-partisan and censorial groups like the Global Disinformation Index and NewsGuard, which smear many mainstream
outlets as “disinformation.”7
GARM threatened Spotify because Joe Rogan promoted views it disagreed with on COVID-19. And it infamously boycotted
X because Elon Musk loosened some of the platform’s censorship restrictions.8
GARM disbanded shortly after public pressure and a lawsuit from X in 2024,9
which ironically evinces how brand-damaging these practices are. But
these censorious practices are still prevalent. Many of the “Big Six” advertising agencies that were all a part of GARM, for example, maintain similar
policies.10
These policies and Coca-Cola’s actions create legal exposure under antitrust and anti-discrimination laws.
Coca-Cola needs to rebuild trust by providing transparency around these policies and practices. This will assure customers, shareholders, and others
that it is protecting, not targeting, free speech and religious freedom.