• by Shirley Marschall , Featured Contributor, April 24, 2025

Every week, another report. Every vendor, another rebuttal. Every watchdog, another clarification.

We’re not just fighting fraud anymore -- we’re fighting over fraud.

And in the process, we’re losing something just as critical: credibility.

When Fraud Becomes a Fight

It started (again) when Adalytics released a report accusing multiple players of failing to properly filter general invalid traffic (GIVT). Among the claims: that “thousands of advertisers” may have paid for impressions flagged as invalid, even after verification layers were applied.
The industry pushed back. Fast.

• DoubleVerify called the report “deeply flawed” and accused Adalytics of misunderstanding how filtering works. IAS reaffirmed its “multi-tiered approach to combating ad fraud. The MRC weighed in, calling the findings “sensational” and unsupported by evidence from its audits.

Same report. Three responses, no agreement. If anything, contradiction is the only consistent signal.

The Filtering Fog

One of the biggest debates sparked by the Adalytics report centers on when invalid traffic is actually filtered. Vendors argue that invalid impressions may show up in logs but are removed before billing.

Adalytics suggests those impressions were still monetized.

Technically? Maybe everyone’s right.

But to advertisers, it sounds like: “Yes, those were bots, but don’t worry, they were discounted… eventually.”

And while insiders argue over pre-bid vs. post-bid mechanics, the average marketer is left wondering what actually worked and what they really paid for.
The filtering debate is valid. But it’s also part of the problem. Less science, more strategy wrapped in jargon.

Who’s Guarding the Guard Dogs?

Independent verification vendors exist to protect the ecosystem. But when those vendors start publicly sparring with each other -- or with the people auditing them -- the whole system starts to wobble.

DoubleVerify, MRC, IAS… all responded. Adalytics didn’t. That silence drew criticism, too.

But here’s the thing: Adalytics was the first to uncover the CSAM scandal, a case where brand ads were served alongside child sexual abuse material.

That report led to real, measurable action across the industry.

So can it be dismissed now as irrelevant or reckless? Or did it just miss the mark this time? The truth is: We don’t know.

Now It’s Getting Personal
Just as the technical dust began to settle, things escalated again, this time beyond filtering logs and into legal threats.

Check My Ads, an advocacy group pushing for greater accountability in digital media, published a statement claiming that DoubleVerify’s legal team sent a letter attempting to silence its questions.

DoubleVerify hasn’t commented publicly on the letter. But the optics are hard to ignore: a leading verification company potentially using legal muscle, not against bad actors, but against its critics.

This isn’t just a technical mess anymore. It’s a trust problem, and every rebuttal, denial, and legal distraction only makes it worse.

Brand Safety Theater

This isn’t just a metrics debate, it’s a credibility crisis. Advertisers are spending real money on brand safety, ad verification, and fraud prevention.
But they’re not always sure what they’re being protected from -- or when -- or by whom.

We’ve built a system full of dashboards, badges, accreditations, and post-campaign reports.

But if no one can agree on definitions -- and vendors are busy defending their logic -- it all starts to feel like brand safety theater: elaborate, expensive, and only loosely connected to reality.

Truth Optional

Ad fraud is real. Organized crime is involved. The stakes are massive.

But the response? Increasingly, it’s PR statements, rebuttal PDFs, and technical hair-splitting.

We need better data. Clearer standards. And maybe most of all: less fighting, more fixing.

Because right now, fraud is still happening -- and the people tasked with preventing it are too busy arguing about who’s right.