Money. Identity. Technology.
Follow the money. Find the decision.
Publisher challenging the commercial consequences of classification
FilmOn.com Inc. is the historical claimant that challenged DoubleVerify's descriptions of its network in confidential commercial reports to advertisers. It disputed the breadth and implications of the labels and alleged that they affected advertising relationships.
FilmOn's opening brief says it demanded removal or correction on 12 December 2013, disputing whole-network treatment and a pornographic implication. It alleged that existing and prospective advertisers refused business because of the reports. The underlying correspondence and any later correction were not acquired. The California Supreme Court's 2019 opinion addresses an anti-SLAPP issue rather than awarding damages or ordering a label change.
FilmOn.com Inc. → DoubleVerify Inc. — named litigant
2013-12-12 – 2013-12-12
Opening brief says FilmOn demanded removal/correction on12December2013 and disputed whole-network scope and pornographic implication; underlying letters/appendix and actual later correction not obtained.
FilmOn.com Inc. → Historical DoubleVerify confidential website reports
Historical complaint described2019
FilmOn alleged reports caused prospective/existing advertisers to refuse business; no adjudicated falsity, damages amount or independent causal estimate is supplied.
The court expressly applied FilmOn.com Inc. v. DoubleVerify Inc. (2019), involving confidential paid website reports tagged for adult content or copyright infringement. In this opinion, that earlier case supplies the legal comparison between commercial classification for advertisers and commercial risk reporting for acquirers (printed pp13-14; reader305-319). The comparison is significant for the investigation's structure: a privately distributed classifier does not obtain this procedural shield merely by invoking a public-interest subject. It establishes no common ownership, data feed or operational coordination between DoubleVerify and MATCH, and does not adjudicate the truth of FilmOn's challenged classifications. The named precedent remains an unacquired next-question candidate; no separate FilmOn inquiry was opened.
Read the research & sources ↗FilmOn classification litigation: a paid label, an attempted correction, and a procedural limit ↗
FilmOn.com Inc. → asserted a correction and clarification demand → DoubleVerify Inc. — named litigant
2013-12-12 – 2013-12-12
Reported by the cited source
Opening brief says FilmOn demanded removal/correction on12December2013 and disputed whole-network scope and pornographic implication; underlying letters/appendix and actual later correction not obtained.
FilmOn.com Inc. → alleged false labels and advertising harm → Historical DoubleVerify confidential website reports
Historical complaint described2019
Reported by the cited source
FilmOn alleged reports caused prospective/existing advertisers to refuse business; no adjudicated falsity, damages amount or independent causal estimate is supplied.