Filed claim seeking monetary and reputational remedies for disputed criticism
DV v Adalytics complaint —12May2025
This is Document 1 in federal case 8:25-cv-01535, filed on 12 May 2025 by DoubleVerify Holdings Inc. and DoubleVerify Inc. against Adalytics Research LLC. It records the plaintiffs' allegations and requested relief.
Parties and requested remedies
Adalytics is the sole named defendant. The pleading asks for compensation or disgorgement, punitive damages, costs and fees, and retraction and corrective advertising. Paragraph 68 alleges coordination with Check My Ads in amplifying statements. That does not establish the alleged coordination or make Check My Ads a defendant in this complaint. No later case disposition was acquired in the retained lane.
DoubleVerify Holdings Inc. → DV v Adalytics complaint —12May2025
is named plaintiff in filed complaint
2025-05-12 – 2025-05-12
Stamped12May2025 original complaint names DoubleVerify Holdings Inc. and DoubleVerify Inc. as plaintiffs, Adalytics Research LLC as sole defendant. No later case status acquired.
DV v Adalytics complaint —12May2025 → Adalytics Research LLC
seeks damages, retraction and corrective advertising
2025-05-12 – 2025-05-12
Pleading asks compensation/disgorgement, punitive damages, costs/fees and corrective relief. These are requested, not granted; CMA is not its named defendant.
DV v Adalytics complaint —12May2025 → Check My Ads
alleges coordinated amplification
2025-05-12 – 2025-05-12
Paragraph68 alleges coordination with CMA in amplifying statements. This remains plaintiff allegation and does not establish a judicial finding, operational control or that CMA was sued in this complaint.
Stamped12May2025 original complaint names DoubleVerify Holdings Inc. and DoubleVerify Inc. as plaintiffs, Adalytics Research LLC as sole defendant. No later case status acquired.
Stamped12May2025 original complaint names DoubleVerify Holdings Inc. and DoubleVerify Inc. as plaintiffs, Adalytics Research LLC as sole defendant. No later case status acquired.
Pleading asks compensation/disgorgement, punitive damages, costs/fees and corrective relief. These are requested, not granted; CMA is not its named defendant.
Paragraph68 alleges coordination with CMA in amplifying statements. This remains plaintiff allegation and does not establish a judicial finding, operational control or that CMA was sued in this complaint.