Scott Galloway’s Call for a Boycott of Big Tech

Estimated reading time: 5 minutes

Key takeaways:

• Scott Galloway is initiating a boycott of major tech and AI services starting February 1, 2026.
• The protest targets the ties between Big Tech and the Trump administration regarding ICE policies.
• Galloway advocates for a quieter, revenue-focused form of activism.
• This boycott highlights the moral responsibilities of technology companies in society.
• Consumer participation can drive change and provoke corporate accountability.

In a bold move that has shaken the tech community, New York University marketing professor Scott Galloway has initiated a boycott of major tech and AI services, effective February 1, 2026. The boycott aims to protest policies associated with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the ties between Big Tech—particularly giants like OpenAI, Amazon, and Microsoft—and the Trump administration. This month-long action is capturing attention and raises vital questions about the moral responsibilities of technology companies in today’s socio-political landscape.

Galloway is calling on Americans to actively unsubscribe from popular services including OpenAI’s ChatGPT, Amazon Prime Video, and Microsoft Office. His rationale hinges on the idea that by impacting revenue streams for these companies, consumers can apply pressure on executives who have established connections to the Trump administration, particularly through financial contributions and participation in events. You can read more about Galloway’s announcement here.

Galloway’s strategy targets what he describes as a “quieter” form of protest, differing from the typical loud marches seen in traditional activism. He believes that a month of revenue decline can lead to seismic effects—one that might influence stock valuations and potentially reach the ears of policymakers in Washington. The focus on a measurable financial impact rather than just a social outcry could underscore the economical might that consumers possess when united.

In an environment where anti-ICE protests have gained traction, emphasizing the complicity of technology companies in supporting controversial policies stands as an important narrative. Galloway’s call to action feeds into broader discussions surrounding corporate social responsibility in the tech industry, especially amid increasing public scrutiny of relationships between corporations and governmental powers.

Interestingly enough, Galloway’s protest also connects to the ongoing support for AI innovation as a competitive edge against nations like China. The landscape of AI development is not devoid of political maneuvering, with leaders portraying artificial intelligence as a frontier critical for national security and economic supremacy. Acknowledging the involvement of Big Tech in this narrative poses a compelling question: How far should corporations go in fostering political relationships, especially when public sentiment swings strongly against their practices?

As AI continues to grow and reshape industries, it’s vital for the public to remain informed about not just the technology itself but also the socio-political implications of its development and the entities behind it. The growing concern is, as Galloway points out, how much influence AI companies wield in shaping policy, and what responsibility they carry when their services inadvertently support controversial agendas.

For many, participating in Galloway’s boycott offers a unique chance to capitalize on consumer power. Using ethical purchasing decisions can not only serve as a form of protest but can also lead to meaningful changes within corporations. In this regard, the call to action is as much about personal conviction as it is about making strategic decisions in a marketplace increasingly dominated by a few massive players.

In turn, startups and smaller AI companies may find opportunity during this month of boycott. Tech-savvy entrepreneurs can pivot towards addressing the emerging needs of consumers seeking alternatives to the services represented by Galloway’s targets. Whether it’s through offering ethical AI solutions or creating platforms focused on transparency, the space remains open for innovation during this moment of transition.

Moreover, as consumers unite to publicize their concerns, there lies a significant avenue for dialogue—conversations around corporate ethics and the responsibility of tech companies in our daily lives are more vital than ever. Engagement through social media and content sharing can amplify Galloway’s message, inspiring more people to evaluate whose services they support and the implications those choices bear.

As Scott Galloway embarks on this unprecedented boycott of big tech companies and AI services, it invites a broader discourse on corporate responsibility in the AI era and our role as consumers. The impact of this protest could resonate far beyond February 2026, serving as a blueprint for how collective consumer action can shift not only corporate landscapes but the political affiliations that govern them.

For ongoing updates and insights on the intersection of technology, ethics, and consumer power, keep an eye on the evolving news landscape. The choices we make now could very well define the future of AI and its alignment with our national values.

Q: What is the primary goal of Scott Galloway’s boycott?
A: The primary goal is to protest against the ties between Big Tech and the Trump administration, particularly regarding ICE policies, by encouraging consumers to unsubscribe from their services.

Q: How long will the boycott last?
A: The boycott is scheduled to last for the month of February 2026.

Q: How can consumers participate in the boycott?
A: Consumers can participate by unsubscribing from services like OpenAI’s ChatGPT, Amazon Prime Video, and Microsoft Office to impact revenue streams.

Q: What is the expected impact of the boycott?
A: The goal is to create a financial impact on the involved companies, which may influence stock valuations and draw attention from policymakers.