An analysis of 30 posts on X from large accounts with false or misleading claims on the Israel-Hamas war found 200 ads from 86 brands and others below 24 posts
This is a textbook intimidation lawsuit and also a huge indictment of the brands that continue to advertise on Twitter/X. … X: Seth Hettena / @seth_hettena : The craziest part of this report is that @X is sharing ad revenue with super-spreaders of misinformation. Why would any reputable brand want a part of this? @bobbybigwheel : Amazing that one of the accounts here that still has advertisers under their tweets is Dom Lucre. Ina Fried / @inafried : More on X and ads. This report from @NewsGuardRating on ads appearing near false claims about the Israel-Hamas war. David Corn / @davidcorndc : Very interesting. I assume Musk will argue ads next to disinformationalists is the price you pay for free speech. I'm guessing advertisers might not agree. After all, they have to pay for their speech. @newsguardrating : New: NewsGuard found ads for dozens of major brands unintentionally appearing below viral posts on X advancing false or egregiously misleading claims about the Israel-Hamas war https://www.newsguardtech.com/ ... Erin Reed / @erininthemorn : Absolutely incredible post from Newsguard, which found that accounts are monetizing egregiously false claims about the Israel-Hamas war and that ads for dozens of companies appeared beside misinformation. They appear to be confirming many of the issues Media Matters found. Forums: r/ActiveMeasures : Brand Danger: X and Misinformation Super-spreaders Share Ad Money from False Claims About the Israel-Hamas War - Misinformation Monitor: NewsGuard See also Mediagazer
Context & Ripple Effects
The finding adds an advertiser-safety dimension to earlier reporting that a small group of unreliable accounts dominated early English-language war news on X. It ties the visibility of misleading content directly to brand adjacency and X's revenue-sharing incentives.
It also lands amid X's defamation suit against Media Matters over its reporting on antisemitic content, making third-party evidence about ad placement especially consequential for advertisers and the platform.
First-order effects
- The 86 brands and other advertisers identified in the sample face immediate brand-safety scrutiny because their ads appeared below posts containing false or misleading Israel-Hamas war claims.
- X faces renewed pressure over whether its ad-placement controls and revenue sharing keep advertising from supporting high-reach misinformation accounts.
Second-order effects
- Advertisers and agencies may demand tighter placement exclusions, stronger verification of where campaigns run, and clearer reporting from X before committing spend around breaking-news content.
- The report strengthens the case for independent monitoring: a later analysis found [[a:847515|misleading war posts from verified users continued to gain reach while Community Notes did not scale]], suggesting that platform-native safeguards alone may not satisfy buyers.
Third-order effects
- If repeated audits continue to link brand ads and creator payouts to misleading crisis content, ad-safety assurance could become a more important competitive differentiator among social platforms.
- The underlying tension is structural: platforms that treat content as an engagement and ad-placement control problem must reconcile monetization incentives with the higher reputational cost of misinformation during conflicts.
The trend: This is one data point in the shift from general content-moderation debates toward advertiser-led demands for auditable controls over monetized misinformation.