A US District Court Judge for the Northern District of Texas has dismissed X Corp.’s lawsuit against advertisers it claimed participated in an “illegal boycott” of X, Reuters reports. X originally filed its lawsuit in 2024 in response to advertisers pulling ads from the social media platform, a decision reportedly motivated by X's lax approach to moderating hate speech.

Judge Jane J. Boyle was not swayed by X’s claims that advertisers like Twitch, Shell, Nestlé and Lego pulling advertising amounted to an “antitrust injury.” The companies named in X’s lawsuit are members of the World Federation of Advertisers’ Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM), an organization used by advertisers to bargain for certain safety standards from the platforms they advertise on. Advertisers took issue with X's approach to moderation and responded accordingly, purchasing ad space on other social platforms instead. The decision hurt X's ad revenue, but as Boyle writes in the dismissal, the company made no claim that advertisers did so to benefit a competitor or to form their own competing platform. They also didn't prevent X from selling ad space to other companies not in GARM. "The very nature of the alleged conspiracy does not state an antitrust claim," Boyle writes, "and the Court therefore has no qualm dismissing with prejudice."

X’s lawsuit being "dismissed with prejudice" means the company will be unable to refile the lawsuit at a later date. Separately, Judge Boyle also denied X the ability to appeal her decision. The company's rancor for advertisers was apparent when owner Elon Musk compared X's lawsuit to going to war, but the vitriol appears to be all for naught. X claimed in January 2026 that nearly all its top advertisers had returned to buying ads on the platform. As a subsidiary of xAI, the social platform is now also facing new, even more pressing issues, like its AI assistant Grok's alleged willingness to generate sexually explicit imagery of minors.

Adobe has agreed to pay the US government $75 million to settle its lawsuit over the company's allegedly harmful approach to subscriptions. The suit started in 2024, when the US Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission filed a joint complaint alleging the company deliberately made it difficult to cancel subscriptions and obscured the frequently expensive "early termination fee" customers have to pay to get out of annual subscriptions that are paid monthly.

"While we disagree with the government’s claims and deny any wrongdoing, we are pleased to resolve this matter," Adobe writes. "We have agreed to provide $75 million worth of free services to customers that qualify. We will proactively reach out to the affected customers once the appropriate filings with the Court are made and accepted. Additionally, we have agreed to a $75 million payment to the Department of Justice."

Adobe's statement also notes that it's made the process of both signing up for and canceling subscriptions "more streamlined and transparent." A major sticking point of the original complaint is that canceling an "annual plan, paid monthly" subscription before completing the first year of service required customers to pay an early termination fee to make up for the value Adobe lost initially offering its software at a discount. Adobe currently allows plans to be refunded if they're canceled within 14 days after signing up, but canceling an "annual plan, paid monthly" subscription after those first 14 days requires paying a hefty fee (as outlined in the company's detailed support page).

A court will have to approve Adobe's proposed settlement before the lawsuit can be totally resolved, but the timing is at least a little ironic. Shantanu Narayen, Adobe's CEO for the last 18 years and the executive who oversaw the company's transition from traditional software business to software-as-a-service business, recently announced plans to retire.