Credit: Murrstock/Adobe Stock Risks and Ad Fraud Protection In Digital Advertising
The ever-evolving digital marketing landscape, coupled with the industry-wide adoption of programmatic advertising, poses a significant threat to the effectiveness and integrity of digital advertising campaigns. This article explores various risks to digital advertising from pixel stuffing and ad stacking to domain spoofing and bots. It will also explore what should be done to ensure ad fraud protection and improve effectiveness.
September 06, 2024 at 03:45 PM
8 minute read
Cybersecurity
What You Need to Know
- Fraud accounts for 22% of yearly digital advertising expenditures, resulting in losses of up to $84 billion for advertisers annually.
- Digital ad fraud involves deceptive practices where fraudulent actors exploit automated advertising systems to drain ad budgets, skew campaign metrics and diminish campaign effectiveness.
- Monitoring of a digital campaign's performance is extremely critical.
Fraud accounts for 22% of yearly digital advertising expenditures, according to Juniper Research, resulting in losses of up to $84 billion for advertisers annually. Notice programs in the settlement context are not immune from this danger. Class counsel has a fiduciary duty to protect the best interests of the class, therefore protecting notice programs and the effectiveness of a digital advertising campaign is critical. Further, the recent tidal wave of suspicious claim filing may be connected to advertising (ad) fraud as well. Counsel would be remiss to brush aside concerns over ad fraud in favor of cheap digital notice campaigns. This article explores various risks to digital advertising from pixel stuffing and ad stacking to domain spoofing and bots. It will also explore what should be done to ensure ad fraud protection and improve effectiveness.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
'Innovation Over Regulation': Tech Litigators and Experts Share Insights on the Future of AI, Data Privacy and Cybersecurity Under Trump
'We're Back': Fourth Circuit Considers Certification of Marriott Data Breach Class ... Again
5 minute read
Scammers Target Lawyers Across Country With Fake Court Notices
Trending Stories
- 1While Data Breaches May Lead to Years of Legal Battles, Cyberattacks Can be Prevented
- 2The Definition of Special Employment
- 3People in the News—Nov. 21, 2024—Willig Williams, Hangley Aronchick
- 4Rawle & Henderson Hires New Del. Managing Partner
- 5Divided State Court Reinstates Dispute Over Replacement Vehicles Fees
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
