Case Summary

DoubleVerify

NYSE: DV

Case Details

  • Electrical Workers Pension Fund, Local 103, I.B.E.W. v. DoubleVerify Holdings, Inc. et al.
  • Class Period:November 10, 2023, and February 27, 2025
  • Date Filed:May 22, 2025
  • Jurisdiction:U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York
  • Docket Number: 1:25-cv-04332
  • Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 21, 2025
Days Left to
Seek Plaintiff
0

Overview

A class action lawsuit has been filed against DoubleVerify Holdings, Inc. (“DoubleVerify” or the “Company”) and certain of the Company’s former senior executive officers alleging violations of the federal securities laws. DoubleVerify stock trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol “DV.”

The DoubleVerify class action lawsuit was brought on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired DoubleVerify common stock between November 10, 2023, and February 27, 2025, inclusive (the “Class Period”).

DoubleVerify operates a software platform for digital media measurement and advertising optimization services. Founded in 2008, DoubleVerify began with a focus on measuring the quality and performance of digital ads after they are purchased and deployed by advertisers (“Measurement Services”). The Company’s Measurement Services provide advertisers with data on metrics such as viewability, fraud detection, brand safety, and suitability to help them verify whether their digital ads are viewed in a fraud-free, brand-suitable environment.

DoubleVerify has since expanded its core offerings to include advertising optimization services, with a focus on using artificial intelligence (“AI”) to drive desired digital ad placement outcomes for global brands (“Activation Services”). DoubleVerify’s Activation Services have traditionally been geared toward ads purchased through programmatic auctions on open ad exchanges. The Activation Services that DoubleVerify provides to advertisers in connection with open ad exchanges are priced at a premium and generate substantially higher profit margins for DoubleVerify than its Measurement Services.

Prior to the Class Period, advertisers began to experience a sharp increase in internet traffic from advertising impressions served to robotic agents (“bots”) rather than to genuine human consumers. As generative AI technology improved, third parties began to generate seemingly authentic user agents with bots that could mimic billions of ad impressions being delivered to real users. The proliferation of generative AI became a key factor in the rapid evolution of invalid bot traffic schemes, making it easier for bad actors to falsify data patterns. Because DoubleVerify’s technology could not adequately filter out this invalid bot traffic, the Company’s Activation Services on open ad exchanges had become less useful to advertisers. Leading up to the Class Period, this industry shift to closed platforms had already begun to negatively impact DoubleVerify’s margins and profits.

The DoubleVerify class action lawsuit alleges that throughout the class period, Defendants misled investors by failing 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 its Activation Services 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.

*          *          *

If you purchased or otherwise acquired DoubleVerify common stock between November 10, 2023 and February 27, 2025, both dates inclusive, and you wish to serve as lead plaintiff in this lawsuit, we encourage you to submit your information to DiCello Levitt LLP via the form on this page. 

You can also contact DiCello Levitt partner Brian O’Mara by calling (888) 287-9005 or at investors@dicellolevitt.com. 

The deadline to apply to the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in the DoubleVerify class action lawsuit is July 21, 2025.