Acquisition closed 9 September 2026. This packet addresses the published April 2025 preservation letter and a finite public counterpart check. It does not adjudicate the competing technical claims, establish current litigation status, or investigate underlying harmful material.
The concrete pressure mechanism is a lawyer's notice of anticipated litigation plus a broad preservation-and-confirmation demand. The next observed judicial step belongs to a different recipient: the acquired May 2025 complaint sues Adalytics Research LLC, not Check My Ads Institute. These should be separate relationships in any graph.
The recipient-published, redacted [14 April 2025 letter](http[local research file] is one page on Paul Hastings letterhead, visibly signed Bradley J. Bondi, acting for DoubleVerify Holdings, Inc., and addressed to Arielle Garcia care of Check My Ads Institute. It identifies possible defamation, tortious interference and injurious falsehood concerning the March 28 Adalytics bot report and related public statements. It says Check My Ads should anticipate litigation and asks for email confirmation by noon EDT on 16 April that records will be preserved. The requested scope includes documents, messages and electronic information under its possession, custody or control relating to DoubleVerify, the named reports, other Adalytics posts referencing DV, communications with regulators or government officials about DV, and communications with Adalytics generally. [PDF1, both substantive paragraphs; full page text and image inspected.]
This copy demands preservation and confirmation, not immediate document production, retraction, cessation of publication, damages or a confidentiality undertaking. The lawyer asserts the litigation posture; the letter is not a court order and does not by itself settle the legally enforceable preservation scope. No confirmation response or implementation record was acquired.
The [16 April Check My Ads statement](http[local research file] is credited to Nandini & Claire. It reports receipt on April 14, says it will comply with its legal obligations, objects that the demand is overbroad, and invokes speech and government-communication protections. It stands by its work and says its work will continue. Those are the recipient's positions. The public statement and publication of the letter do not prove that no chilling effect occurred; equally, they do not establish actual silencing, a judicial overbreadth ruling, completed preservation or production. [Official reader lines18–36, entire substantive statement read.]
Ordinary GET returned403. The saved HTML is only that error response. The already-readable official-site text is retained as counter-statement.reader.txt; it is not an HTML original. No alternate language, mirror, form or repeated failed GET was used.
DV's [7 April rebuttal](http[local research file] disputes the report's treatment of bot traffic, billing, code attribution and detection. It says impressions can be removed from billable counts after delivery and characterizes the research and Check My Ads amplification as misleading. It also specifically alleges inaccurate representations to federal agencies and Congress. This is a useful rival explanation for DV's action: it publicly presents the dispute as protection against false commercial claims. It is DV's account, not an independently audited result, and predates rather than responds to the April 14 letter. No direct DV public answer to the recipient's April 16 constitutional objection was located in the finite pass. [Read title/date, opening takeaways and body through technical standards discussion; official reader lines2–77, with related passage95–97. Original HTML retained; no linked research, bot logs, billing data or third-party standards independently audited in this lane.]
An [AdExchanger-hosted republication of the stamped complaint](http[local research file] records Document1 filed12 May2025, civil action8:25-cv-01535, US District Court for the District of Maryland. Plaintiffs are DoubleVerify Holdings Inc. and DoubleVerify Inc.; the sole named defendant in this original complaint is Adalytics Research, LLC. Paragraph68 alleges coordination with Check My Ads to amplify statements. That is a plaintiff allegation, not a finding or a claim that Check My Ads was sued in this document. [PDF1 caption and opening; PDF23 paragraphs68–70.]
The requested remedies include compensation/disgorgement, punitive damages, costs and fees, and an order for retraction and corrective advertising. They are prayers for relief, not granted remedies. The signature page lists Paul Hastings counsel, including Bondi, alongside signing counsel Kwame J. Manley. This gives documentary continuity of counsel and subject matter, not proof of a particular preservation response or a case against Check My Ads. [PDF31 prayer A–E; PDF32 signature.]
Custody is a publisher's copy of a filed pleading bearing court filing headers, not a fresh court-docket acquisition. Read PDF1,23–24,29–32 only; the complete32-page PDF was retained and extracted, but intervening factual allegations and all counts were not fully read. No answer, amended complaint, dismissal, judgment, settlement, production order or completed corrective publication was acquired. Current case status remains outside this packet.
Two mechanisms are now evidenced: DV counsel to Check My Ads, preservation demand under a stated litigation threat; and DV corporate plaintiffs to Adalytics, filed claims seeking damages and correction. The shared subject matter and counsel do not erase their different addressees or procedural states. A public research-to-lawmakers route was within the letter's requested preservation scope; it was not shown to be prohibited by an exercised court power.
The most discriminating missing records are Check My Ads' actual response/confirmation and any later filed instrument specifically naming it; for the Adalytics branch, the court's subsequent disposition or an executed settlement would distinguish requested correction from achieved correction. A public rebuttal and a demand letter can be both reputation defense and pressure on a critic; these sources alone do not decide the merits or measure downstream chilling.
Seven discovery queries were run: exact statement title on Check My Ads; DoubleVerify with April14/2025/preservation; site.doubleverify.com with Check My Ads/legal letter (literal malformed domain operator, not treated as an exhaustive domain search); DoubleVerify/Bradley/Check My Ads; DoubleVerify/Check My Ads/April2025/response; site:doubleverify.com with Adalytics/May12,2025/lawsuit; and site:doubleverify.com with Check My Ads/letter. Read the exact statement and linked letter, the discovered DV response, and scoped portions of the directly surfaced complaint. Secondary news results were discovery context only, not proof of the operative demands or outcome. No broader donor, legal-firm, related-company, or separate-lawsuit branch opened.
Successful original captures: recipient-posted redacted letter, DV response HTML and media-hosted complaint republication. One403 statement-original route closed; official reader substitute retained. Manifest counter-captures.json records hashes and precise scope. No forms, accounts, private communications, customer records, listed-site visits or harmful images accessed. An incidental unrelated local memory read was rejected by automatic approval review and was not retried; it supplied no evidence.