Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a nonprofit legal organization specializing in First Amendment cases, has successfully advocated for a significant policy change at PepsiCo regarding the company’s advertising practices. The global food and beverage corporation has adopted a new advertising policy that commits to viewpoint neutrality in its media-buying decisions, a development that represents a notable shift in corporate approach to controversial content.
According to policy documentation from PepsiCo, the company’s content and media-buying policies are now explicitly “viewpoint neutral with respect to political or religious status or views.” This change follows engagement between Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys and PepsiCo representatives, alongside partners including Bowyer Research and financial advisor David Bahnsen.
The policy shift marks a departure from PepsiCo’s previous involvement with the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM), an industry organization that disbanded in 2024. GARM, an initiative of the World Federation of Advertisers (WFA), had encouraged member companies to coordinate advertising decisions based on content concerns, including what it classified as “hate speech” and “misinformation.”
Legal analysts familiar with the matter note that the collective influence of GARM members—representing approximately 90 percent of global advertising spending—created significant market power to potentially impact content creators across digital platforms. According to reporting on the organization’s activities, GARM had previously coordinated efforts affecting multiple platforms and content creators, including Spotify, Twitter (now X), and various news outlets.
Alliance Defending Freedom had previously filed shareholder resolutions at twelve major corporations that participated in GARM, including PepsiCo. These resolutions requested greater transparency regarding advertising policies and commitments to respect diverse viewpoints. PepsiCo’s policy update came after meeting with ADF attorneys and affiliated shareholders, who subsequently withdrew their resolution following the company’s commitment to viewpoint neutrality.
Constitutional law experts suggest that corporate advertising policies have significant implications for the broader marketplace of ideas, as advertising revenue directly impacts which voices can reach substantial audiences online. The policy change at PepsiCo represents a concrete example of how shareholder advocacy can influence corporate practices regarding free speech principles.
“Free speech considerations extend beyond government actions to include how private sector decisions shape public discourse,” explains Alliance Defending Freedom in their analysis of the development. Their corporate engagement initiative focuses on encouraging businesses to adopt policies that foster diverse viewpoints rather than restricting certain perspectives.
Alliance Defending Freedom contrasts PepsiCo’s approach with that of Disney, which reportedly declined to commit to viewpoint neutrality in its advertising policies following similar engagement efforts. This comparison highlights varying corporate responses to concerns about advertising practices and their impact on free expression.
The PepsiCo policy change represents the second successful policy shift resulting from Alliance Defending Freedom’s corporate engagement team working with shareholder alliances. The legal organization continues to advocate for viewpoint neutrality in corporate advertising practices as part of its broader mission to protect First Amendment freedoms.
Constitutional scholars suggest that as digital platforms become increasingly central to public discourse, corporate policies regarding advertising and content moderation take on heightened significance for free expression principles. Alliance Defending Freedom’s work in this area reflects growing attention to how corporate decisions impact the broader ecosystem of speech and religious expression beyond traditional government contexts.
