DoubleVerify refutes Adalytics claims, citing methodology flaws and billing safeguards
DoubleVerify has released a formal rebuttal to Adalytics' March 28 report, refuting claims that advertisers are being billed for General Invalid Traffic (GIVT). DoubleVerify asserts that its post-bid systems accurately filter these impressions in compliance with MRC and TAG standards, and argues that Adalytics' methodology relied heavily on mischaracterizing URLScan bot traffic.
Key Takeaways
- Forensic review of 115 cited examples showed DoubleVerify accurately detected all eligible impressions and managed them according to MRC standards.
- Adalytics report methodology relied on URLScan, a non-declared headless browser bot that is not on the IAB Spiders & Bots List.
- The report allegedly conflates General Invalid Traffic (GIVT) with Sophisticated Invalid Traffic (SIVT) to inflate perceptions of ad spend waste.
- DoubleVerify found that 62 of the 115 examples shared by Adalytics lacked the necessary tags or signals for its verification to have been in place.
Why It Matters
The dispute highlights a fundamental friction between pre-bid blocking and post-bid reconciliation in the programmatic supply chain. While third-party reports often focus on ads served to bots, verification vendors argue that industry-certified standards prevent these impressions from becoming billable events. This public disagreement places increased pressure on DSPs and measurement firms to improve transparency regarding how and when invalid traffic is actually removed from final invoices. As publishers and streaming platforms increasingly rely on programmatic revenue, the accuracy of these automated safety layers is critical for maintaining buyer trust. Watch for potential updates to the Media Rating Council guidelines on GIVT reporting transparency later this year.
Additional Context
The conflict between DoubleVerify and Adalytics has escalated beyond public statements into the legal system. Per MediaPost reporting from April 2026, a federal judge ruled that DoubleVerify can proceed with a defamation and false advertising lawsuit against Adalytics over the March 2025 report. DoubleVerify alleges that the report's claims were intentionally misleading and served as a marketing tool for Adalytics' own competing transparency services. The court noted that DoubleVerify plausibly argued the report falsely implied its pre-bid services are ineffective, potentially leading to unwarranted charges for customers. This dispute occurs during a period of intense regulatory and legal pressure for the ad verification industry. In February 2025, per Marketing Brew, U.S. Senators Marsha Blackburn and Richard Blumenthal sent inquiry letters to the CEOs of DoubleVerify and Integral Ad Science. The lawmakers expressed concerns over separate Adalytics findings suggesting that brand-safety tools failed to prevent ads from appearing on sites hosting illegal content. Additionally, DoubleVerify faced a derivative shareholder lawsuit in late 2025, which alleged that executives failed to disclose how the rise of AI-driven bot traffic and the shift of ad spend to closed 'walled garden' platforms like Meta and Amazon were impacting the company’s revenue margins.
Read full article at doubleverify.com