Notice: SCAC Restructuring

The SCAC is currently undergoing restructuring and has paused updates to the Clearinghouse website. As a courtesy to our users, the New Filings email will continue to be provided by the Stanford Securities Litigation Analytics project during this period.

Processing your request


please wait...

Case Page

 

Case Status:    ONGOING  
—On or around 07/25/2025 (Date of last review)
Current/Last Presiding Judge:  
Hon. Analisa Torres

Filing Date: May 22, 2025

According to the Complaint, DoubleVerify Holdings, Inc. provides data analytics services that help brands, agencies, and publishers verify that their digital advertising investments are delivered as intended. This lawsuit was filed against DoubleVerify and two of its Officers.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants failed to disclose that: (a) DoubleVerify’s customers were shifting their ad spending from open exchanges to closed platforms, where the Company’s technological capabilities were limited and competed directly with native tools provided by platforms like Meta Platforms and Amazon; (b) DoubleVerify’s ability to monetize on Activation Services, the Company’s high-margin advertising optimization services segment, was limited because the development of its technology for closed platforms was significantly more expensive and time-consuming than disclosed to investors; (c) DoubleVerify’s Activation Services in connection with certain closed platforms would take several years to monetize; (d) DoubleVerify’s competitors were better positioned to incorporate AI into their offerings on closed platforms, which impaired DoubleVerify’s ability to compete effectively and adversely impacted the Company’s profits; (e) DoubleVerify systematically overbilled its customers for ad impressions served to declared bots operating out of known data center server farms; (f) DoubleVerify’s risk disclosures were materially false and misleading because they characterized adverse facts that had already materialized as mere possibilities; and (g) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ positive statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects were materially false and/or misleading or lacked a reasonable basis.

Protected Content


Please Log In or Sign Up for a free account to access restricted features of the Clearinghouse website, including the Advanced Search form and the full case pages.

When you sign up, you will have the option to save your search queries performed on the Advanced Search form.