📎 Source Note: Transparency is essential in journalism. The facts and figures presented in this article are derived directly from the legal filings in this case. A copy of which can be found at the bottom of this article. We encourage readers to review the primary source document for themselves.

Corporate Greed Case Study: Omnicom, IPG, and the Alleged Threat to a Free Press

TL;DR: The Federal Trade Commission is moving to block a merger between advertising giants Omnicom and IPG. The government’s complaint outlines how the deal would concentrate immense power in the hands of a few firms, making it easier for them to act as a cartel. At the heart of the case is the allegation that these advertising conglomerates have already coordinated to defund media outlets over so-called “misinformation,” a vague label used to suppress legitimate political speech and control which viewpoints reach the American public.

This case is about who gets to decide what news and information you see.

The following investigation breaks down the government’s case and reveals a system where profit motives and brand safety are used as a cudgel to enforce ideological conformity and starve a diverse media ecosystem of the revenue it needs to survive.

Inside the Allegations: Corporate Misconduct

The U.S. government has charged two of the world’s most powerful advertising holding companies, Omnicom Group Inc. and The Interpublic Group of Companies, Inc. (IPG), with attempting a merger that would violate federal antitrust law.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed a formal complaint to block the $13.5 billion acquisition, arguing it would substantially lessen competition and pave the way for collusive behavior that harms the American public.

This legal action paints a ghastly picture of an industry already on the brink of monopoly, where a handful of corporate giants wield immense and unchecked power over the flow of information and commerce.

At the center of the complaint is the structure of the global advertising industry, which is dominated by a group of six holding companies commonly known as the “Big Six.” Omnicom and IPG are key members of this exclusive club, which also includes Publicis, WPP, Dentsu, and Havas.

These powerful conglomerates are sprawling networks of smaller firms they have acquired, offering services that range from creating iconic slogans and brand logos to the critical function of media buying—negotiating and placing trillions of dollars in advertisements across television, radio, and digital platforms.

The proposed merger would consolidate this power further, reducing the Big Six to a Big Five and making the largest player even more dominant.

This increased concentration poses a severe risk to a fair and open market. With fewer competitors, the remaining firms would find it easier to coordinate their actions, monitor each other’s behavior, and punish any company that steps out of line. The FTC complaint points to a history of collaboration among these advertising giants, suggesting a pattern of behavior that the merger would only accelerate.

Timeline of an Alleged Power Grab

Date	Event
December 8, 2024	Omnicom formally agrees to acquire its rival, IPG, for $13.5 billion, triggering regulatory review.
Prior to the Merger	Major advertising agencies, including Omnicom and IPG, participate in the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM). The coalition coordinates advertising decisions, creating blacklists of “harmful content” that often include outlets featuring legitimate political speech, effectively demonetizing them.
June 2025	The Federal Trade Commission issues a formal complaint to block the acquisition. The complaint cites the history of coordination through groups like GARM as a key reason the merger would harm the public interest by making future collusion more likely and effective.

Regulatory Failure and the Neoliberal Dream

The advertising industry’s march toward monopoly is a textbook case of regulatory failure under neoliberal capitalism.

For decades, the prevailing economic ideology has favored deregulation and consolidation, operating under the assumption that bigger is better and that markets, left to their own devices, will produce efficient outcomes. The rise of the “Big Six” advertising holdcos is a direct result of this hands-off approach, which has allowed a small cabal of companies to acquire their competitors and amass unprecedented market power.

These conglomerates are not the product of organic growth but of a relentless strategy of acquisition, swallowing up independent agencies to create globe-spanning networks.

Their immense scale, with dozens of offices worldwide and multi-billion-dollar portfolios of media spending, creates insurmountable barriers for any new competitor hoping to enter the market. The system is designed to protect the incumbents, ensuring that global advertisers seeking to reach American consumers have no real choice outside of this small group of powerful firms.

This concentration of power represents a structural failure of oversight. Antitrust laws like the Clayton Act were designed to prevent the very conditions that now define the advertising market. The fact that the industry has consolidated to such a degree demonstrates a critical weakness in the regulatory framework, which has been unable or unwilling to stop the slow creep of monopolization.

The proposed merger between Omnicom and IPG is the logical conclusion of a system that has consistently prioritized corporate efficiency and shareholder value over the principles of fair competition and market diversity.

Profit-Maximization at All Costs

The incentive structure of late-stage capitalism rewards corporations for maximizing profit above all other considerations, and the advertising industry is no exception. The FTC’s complaint highlights how this profit-at-all-costs mentality can lead to actions that, while economically rational for the corporations, inflict profound harm on the public sphere. The coordination among advertising agencies to boycott certain media platforms is a chilling example of this dynamic in action.

The complaint details the activities of the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM), an initiative that included every major advertising agency holding company. GARM’s stated purpose was to protect brands by preventing their ads from appearing next to “harmful content.” In a capitalist system where brand reputation is paramount, this goal appears reasonable on its surface. No company wants its products advertised next to genuinely dangerous material.

However, the government alleges that this brand safety objective was used as a pretext for something far more sinister. The term “misinformation” was applied so broadly that it swept in legitimate political speech, effectively creating industry-wide blacklists of disfavored viewpoints. When a single advertising firm unilaterally decides to stop buying ads from a publisher, it risks losing a competitive advantage to rivals who continue to do so. But when firms coordinate a boycott, this risk is eliminated. A concerted refusal to deal ensures that all major players are on the same page, protecting their collective interests by starving certain publishers of revenue without fear of being outmaneuvered. This is profit maximization through collusive censorship.

The Economic Fallout: Starving the Fourth Estate

The economic consequences of this alleged coordination are devastating, particularly for the media industry and the public it serves. When a handful of advertising giants who control roughly 90% of global advertising spending decide to collectively defund certain publishers, they are effectively signing their death warrant. This coordinated action chokes off the advertising revenue that is the lifeblood of most media outlets, especially in the digital age.

The downstream effects ripple outward, degrading the entire information ecosystem. Publishers deprived of revenue are forced to scale back their operations, reduce the quality and quantity of the content they produce, or shut down entirely. This consolidation of economic power in advertising leads directly to a consolidation of voice in the media, depriving consumers of a diverse range of viewpoints and creating an information landscape where only the perspectives palatable to corporate advertisers can thrive.

Furthermore, this behavior distorts the advertising market itself. By artificially restricting the supply of available ad space through boycotts, the remaining advertising inventory becomes more valuable. This can raise the cost of advertising for everyone, as brands are forced to compete for a smaller pool of “approved” placements. The system creates a vicious cycle where a few powerful actors can manipulate the market for their own benefit, harming both media publishers and the consumers who rely on them for information.

The PR Machine: Corporate Spin as a Weapon

Corporate messaging is a powerful tool used to legitimize actions that would otherwise be seen as unpalatable, and the advertising industry has mastered this art. The complaint highlights how industry groups use the language of social responsibility to mask anti-competitive and censorious behavior. GARM, for instance, described itself as a noble coalition working to “safeguard the potential of digital media by reducing the availability and monetization of harmful content online.”

This is the language of corporate public relations, carefully crafted to sound virtuous and well-intentioned. It frames the demonetization of certain websites not as a coordinated boycott but as a responsible act of corporate citizenship. It speaks of protecting brands from reputational harm, a concern that resonates with shareholders and the public alike. The organization even claimed its goal was to create a “common understanding of what harmful and sensitive content is,” a phrase that sounds collaborative and reasonable.

But the government’s complaint pulls back the curtain on this corporate spin. It argues that these seemingly benign initiatives are, in fact, mechanisms for collusion. By establishing common standards for “harmful content,” the advertising giants can coordinate their buying decisions in a way that is transparent and easily observable by their competitors, ensuring no one breaks ranks. The PR campaign about “responsible media” provides the perfect cover for actions that suppress speech, limit consumer choice, and consolidate corporate control over the media landscape. Successor organizations in the industry now openly cite GARM as a model to be emulated, demonstrating that this tactic of cloaking collusion in the language of safety is becoming an industry standard.

Wealth Disparity and Corporate Greed

The proposed $13.5 billion merger between Omnicom and IPG is a chilling illustration of the immense wealth and power concentrated at the top of the modern capitalist economy. These are sprawling, publicly traded corporations with multi-billion-dollar revenues and global reach. The merger is a classic example of corporate greed, where the largest players in a market seek to become even larger, not through innovation or superior service, but by simply acquiring a major competitor.

This relentless drive for consolidation exacerbates wealth disparity and concentrates economic power in the hands of a few. When the “Big Six” become the “Big Five,” the remaining companies become even more indispensable, allowing them to command higher fees and exert greater influence. The deal would create the single largest media buying agency in the United States, further cementing an oligopoly where a few executives and shareholders reap enormous financial rewards while competition, diversity, and consumer welfare are diminished.

This transaction is about eliminating a rival to secure a larger share of the market. The complaint highlights that this is a direct threat to the public interest, as it increases the likelihood of the kind of coordinated behavior that enriches the powerful at the expense of everyone else. It is a system working exactly as designed under late-stage capitalism: channeling wealth and power upward while socializing the costs of a less diverse, less competitive, and less free society.

Global Parallels: A Pattern of Predation

The behavior detailed in the FTC’s complaint is indicative of a global pattern of corporate consolidation and control. The “Big Six” are described as global advertising holding companies for a reason. Their power transcends national borders, and their coordination, as seen with the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM), was an international initiative whose members represented roughly 90% of worldwide advertising spending.

This global structure means that decisions made in a boardroom in New York can instantly impact which media outlets survive or fail in Europe, Asia, or South America. The model of using “brand safety” as a justification to demonetize disfavored speech is easily replicated across markets, creating a homogenized global information space curated by a handful of powerful corporate actors. The fight to block the Omnicom-IPG merger in the United States is therefore a battle with international implications, challenging a business model that poses a threat to media diversity worldwide.

Corporate Accountability Fails the Public

The need for the Federal Trade Commission to step in and block this merger is, in itself, a testament to the profound failure of corporate accountability. The system has allowed a few firms to grow so powerful that their actions threaten the public interest, yet meaningful consequences have been elusive. The complaint notes that while the GARM initiative has supposedly been disbanded, its legacy persists, with successor organizations in the advertising industry now citing GARM as a model to be followed.

This reveals a critical flaw in self-regulation and corporate governance. Even when a specific collusive entity is dissolved, the underlying incentives and power structures remain, allowing the behavior to re-emerge under a new name. This is the essence of failed accountability: the names change, but the system of control remains intact. The FTC’s legal action is a rare attempt to impose external accountability on an industry that has proven incapable of policing itself, seeking to address the root cause of the problem—excessive market concentration—rather than merely slapping wrists after the harm is done.

Pathways for Reform & Consumer Advocacy

The government’s complaint implicitly outlines the most direct pathway for reform: vigorous antitrust enforcement. By seeking to block the merger of Omnicom and IPG, the FTC is using its legal authority to prevent an already concentrated market from becoming even less competitive. This action represents a crucial bulwark against the relentless tide of consolidation that defines late-stage capitalism.

Preventing this merger is presented as the primary tool to protect the public from the increased risk of collusion. The complaint makes it clear that once market structure is allowed to consolidate, addressing the resulting anticompetitive coordination becomes increasingly difficult. For consumer advocates, the takeaway is clear: the fight for a fair and diverse media landscape must begin with challenging the corporate mergers that threaten it. Supporting strong regulatory intervention is essential to preserving a market where smaller, independent voices are not systematically silenced by the economic decisions of a corporate cartel.

This Is the System Working as Intended

It would be a mistake to view the actions of Omnicom, IPG, and their competitors as a failure of the capitalist system. In truth, this case study reveals the system working precisely as intended under a neoliberal framework. An economic model that lionizes deregulation, prioritizes shareholder value, and encourages relentless growth has predictably resulted in a highly concentrated market dominated by a few powerful players.

The collusion is a logical strategy in an environment with few competitors. A concerted refusal to deal provides a direct economic benefit to the firms by ensuring they are not competitively disadvantaged relative to their rivals. In a system that defines success as the maximization of profit and the minimization of risk, creating a cartel to control the market is the ultimate winning move. The demonetization of certain viewpoints is simply a consequence of this cold economic logic, a predictable outcome when the power to shape public discourse is handed to corporations structurally obligated to prioritize their bottom line above all else.

Conclusion: A Fight for the Future of Information

The legal battle between the Federal Trade Commission and the combined forces of Omnicom and IPG is a fight for the future of information itself. The government’s complaint lays bare a reality where corporate giants have become the de facto arbiters of acceptable speech, wielding their immense financial power to silence media outlets that do not align with their clients’ brand safety preferences. This quiet, coordinated censorship, executed through the seemingly neutral mechanism of media buying, threatens to erode the foundations of a diverse and pluralistic public square.

The human cost of this dynamic is immeasurable. It is borne by independent journalists whose publications are starved of revenue, by citizens who are deprived of a diverse range of viewpoints, and by a society that risks slipping into an echo chamber curated by corporate interests. If two of the biggest players are allowed to merge, creating the largest media buying entity in the nation, the mechanisms for this corporate censorship will become even more powerful and harder to resist. This case illustrates a fundamental failure of a system that has allowed corporations to accumulate the power to decide who gets a voice and who is cast into silence.

Frivolous or Serious Lawsuit?

This lawsuit is unequivocally serious. It has been brought by the Federal Trade Commission, the nation’s primary consumer protection and antitrust agency, under the authority of the Clayton Act and the FTC Act. The complaint is not based on frivolous claims but on a well-documented analysis of a highly concentrated market and a specific history of coordinated behavior among its major players.

The government methodically lays out a clear and compelling theory of harm: that reducing the “Big Six” advertising holdcos to a “Big Five” will substantially increase the risk of collusion, harming media publishers and, ultimately, the public. By citing the example of the GARM initiative, the FTC provides concrete evidence that these advertising giants have both the means and the motive to act in concert to control the advertising market. This is a legitimate and crucial legal grievance that strikes at the heart of market concentration and its corrosive effect on commerce and public discourse.

FTC vs Omnicrom Complaint Interpublic other docs avaliable on FTC website Download

Here is the legal complaint that’s linked above from the FTC website: https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/Omnicom-Complaint.pdf

You can read about the decision regarding this merger between Omnicom and IPG from this link: https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/Omnicom-DandO.pdf

Here is the consent order regarding this proposed merger of the two advertising giants: https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/Omnicom-ACCO.pdf

If interested, here is a press release that the FTC released about this: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2025/06/ftc-prevents-anticompetitive-coordination-global-advertising-merger

💡 Explore Corporate Misconduct by Category

Corporations harm people every day — from wage theft to pollution. Learn more by exploring key areas of injustice.

💀 Product Safety Violations — When companies risk lives for profit.
🌿 Environmental Violations — Pollution, ecological collapse, and unchecked greed.
💼 Labor Exploitation — Wage theft, worker abuse, and unsafe conditions.
🛡️ Data Breaches & Privacy Abuses — Misuse and mishandling of personal information.
💵 Financial Fraud & Corruption — Lies, scams, and executive impunity.

NOTE:

This website is facing massive amounts of headwind trying to procure the lawsuits relating to corporate misconduct. We are being pimp-slapped by a quadruple whammy:

The Trump regime's reversal of the laws & regulations meant to protect us is making it so victims are no longer filing lawsuits for shit which was previously illegal.
Donald Trump's defunding of regulatory agencies led to the frequency of enforcement actions severely decreasing. What's more, the quality of the enforcement actions has also plummeted.
The GOP's insistence on cutting the healthcare funding for millions of Americans in order to give their billionaire donors additional tax cuts has recently shut the government down. This government shut down has also impacted the aforementioned defunded agencies capabilities to crack down on evil-doers. Donald Trump has since threatened to make these agency shutdowns permanent on account of them being "democrat agencies".
My access to the LexisNexis legal research platform got revoked. This isn't related to Trump or anything, but it still hurt as I'm being forced to scrounge around public sources to find legal documents now. Sadge.

All four of these factors are severely limiting my ability to access stories of corporate misconduct.

Due to this, I have temporarily decreased the amount of articles published everyday from 5 down to 3, and I will also be publishing articles from previous years as I was fortunate enough to download a butt load of EPA documents back in 2022 and 2023 to make YouTube videos with.... This also means that you'll be seeing many more environmental violation stories going forward :3

Thank you for your attention to this matter,

Aleeia (owner and publisher of www.evilcorporations.com)

Also, can we talk about how ICE has a $170 billion annual budget, while the EPA-- which protects the air we breathe and water we drink-- barely clocks $4 billion? Just something to think about....