PepsiCo just released something bold and refreshing—and it’s not a new flavor of soda.
The global food and beverage brand unveiled a new advertising policy that is a major win for free speech.
PepsiCo’s content and media-buying policies are now “viewpoint neutral with respect to political or religious status or views,” a great way for companies to let free speech flourish in the digital space. PepsiCo’s steps followed shareholder engagement and a meeting between the corporation and Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys, along with partners Bowyer Research and David Bahnsen. The corporation’s actions mark the second successful policy change effected by ADF’s Corporate Engagement team and shareholder alliances.
‘GARM’s harm’: using advertising dollars to suppress speech
Like many other popular corporations, PepsiCo is a global brand with immense influence and ad-buying power.
And for years, PepsiCo and other powerful businesses were members of an organization called the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM), an offshoot of the World Federation of Advertisers (WFA) that sought to suppress “hate speech” and “misinformation.” Although GARM characterized its work as reducing harmful content online, these terms are vague and subjective and often used to punish mainstream conservative and religious views.
GARM encouraged its members to engage in boycotts and coordinated action to stop paid advertising on mainstream conservative and religious news outlets, podcasts, and online content. WFA’s GARM weaponized its members ad revenue to influence what speech appeared online—and to effectively punish those who expressed or published views that GARM didn’t like.
GARM pressured Spotify to boot Joe Rogan from its platform, coordinated to pull ad spending from Twitter (now X) after Elon Musk acquired it, and attacked news sites including The Daily Wire, the New York Post, and other popular right-of-center outlets. And with WFA members representing 90 percent of global advertising spend—almost a trillion dollars annually—GARM’s actions could have significantly harmed companies that didn’t comply with its demands.
Thankfully, GARM disbanded in 2024 after X CEO Elon Musk sued the group for conspiring to pull advertising dollars from his platform. But others in the advertising industry are still encouraging companies to weaponize their ad dollars to silence disfavored views in online debates. And without concrete internal changes, companies may be enticed by the next version of GARM and unknowingly commit their ad-buying power to more censorship.
Course correction: a good business practice
Free speech is a top concern for Americans today. The willingness of major corporations to squelch speech was bound to leave a bad taste in the mouths of customers across the nation. With the encouragement of ADF and ADF-supported shareholders, PepsiCo realized its participation in censorship had all the appeal of flat soda and promptly changed course.
ADF-supported shareholders had filed resolutions at 12 major companies that participated in GARM, including PepsiCo, asking for transparency around their ad-buying services and a commitment to respect the diverse views of the people they serve. In response, PepsiCo met with the shareholders and ADF attorneys to discuss the resolution. After the meeting, PepsiCo agreed to include a commitment to viewpoint neutrality in its advertising policy in exchange for the shareholders dropping the resolution—a great win for all Americans.
Rebuilding trust requires action, not just promises and platitudes. PepsiCo came out strong by changing its policies. But not all companies were willing to protect free speech and religious freedom.
Disney also met with shareholders and ADF attorneys in response to a shareholder petition about the entertainment giant’s participation in GARM. But unlike PepsiCo, Disney took no meaningful steps to disavow censorship. When ADF attorneys asked point-blank if Disney would commit to viewpoint neutrality, Disney responded that it did not think it was in the company’s best interest to do so.
Through GARM, Disney had actively undermined the culture of healthy dialogue, free expression, and free exchange of information that’s necessary to a free country. And that’s just one of Disney’s recent controversial decisions, which include pushing sexualized content on kids. The company’s failure to commit to better practices is disappointing, especially because Disney’s audience includes customers with a variety of views.
Good business requires correcting course when necessary. When the beverage “Pepsi Blue” quickly fell out of favor, what with its antifreeze appearance and use of controversial food dye Blue 1, PepsiCo abandoned it. Likewise, PepsiCo showed the door to toxic advertising practices by updating its policies to expressly respect everyone’s right to free speech.
PepsiCo is charting a new path for businesses to protect civil liberties and avoid the quagmire of corporate overreach on today’s hot-button issues. Other companies should follow its lead.
