This is very interesting and about high time. There is hardly any legal basis to single out the banning of cryptocurrency and ICOs when so many other questionable things are promoted on Google, Facebook and Twitter. They could have probably gotten away with banning a few confirmed scam coins or ICOs but they’d also have to demonstrate similar action in other industries that they have never done with this.
The allegation of collusion is important and I am very curious how this plays out. My suspicion is that these actions are voluntary. The CEOs of these companies were essentially convinced and paid out to it by stakeholders of fiat and traditional securities. If not that, here would be an interesting defense if they could make such a defense legally in this scenario I propose. Of course all 3 of the major companies are based in the US and are subject to the laws of the US including being obliged to co-operate by providing the NSA backdoors for spying. What if under the pretext of national security these companies were forced to ban cryptocurrency advertising? It may sound far fetched but the US government even wanted to put tariffs on Canada during negotiations for NAFTA under the pre-text of National Security.
It is hard to say for sure what the truth is but I’ll be following these lawsuits as some of the truth may come out in the reply to the claim, discovery and other filings. One thing I am sure of is that neither company came up with the idea of their own volition. It would be another thing to prove which external force or entity is really responsible for this. Financially it makes little sense since they all stood to profit more from the increased advertising revenue so it is very plausible that some other stakeholders made an offer they couldn’t refuse whether in the form of enticement or being obliged by law (even if falsely under the pre-text of national security).