Bradley J. Bondi → signed preservation letter as counsel → DoubleVerify Holdings Inc.
2025-04-14 – 2025-04-14
Recipient-published letter names Bondi acting for DoubleVerify Holdings on Paul Hastings letterhead. No fee or ownership relation follows.
Standards pressure
Preservation requests and legal counterpressure
DV Holdings’ counsel issued a preservation demand, and CMA publicly objected. The later complaint names both DV legal entities as plaintiffs and Adalytics as defendant; it separately alleges coordination with CMA.
Solid lines: documented in a cited record. Dashed: reported or inferred. Hollow arrows: proposed powers. Choose a connection for its evidence.
A preservation demand is not a court order or immediate production requirement. Objection is not proof of compliance or chilling. Requested damages and corrective advertising are not granted relief, and CMA is not the named defendant.
What the connections say
9 relationshipsPaul Hastings LLP → is named counsel in demand and pleading → DoubleVerify Holdings Inc.
April–May2025
Firm appears on the preservation letter and later complaint, with Bondi among listed counsel and Kwame Manley signing the complaint. Representation does not establish finance or additional-client coordination.
DoubleVerify Holdings Inc. → issued counsel demand under anticipated litigation → 14April2025 DV preservation demand
2025-04-14 – 2025-04-14
Letter invokes possible defamation/tortious interference/injurious falsehood and asks preservation of DV/Adalytics/government-communication materials. It is not a court order or finding of enforceable scope.
Read the original source 1
14April2025 DV preservation demand → requests preservation and confirmation → Check My Ads
2025-04-14 – 2025-04-14
Addressed to Arielle Garcia care of CMA; asks confirmation by noonEDT16April. It demands neither immediate production, retraction nor cessation. Actual confirmation/compliance not acquired.
Read the original source 1
Check My Ads → publicly objects while asserting legal compliance → 14April2025 DV preservation demand
2025-04-16 – 2025-04-16
Reported by the cited source
16April statement says it will comply with legal obligations but views demand as overbroad and will continue work. This is a position, not completed preservation or judicial overbreadth finding; no measured chilling effect established.
Read the original source 1
DoubleVerify Holdings Inc. → is named plaintiff in filed complaint → DV v Adalytics complaint —12May2025
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.
Read the original source 1
DoubleVerify Inc. — named litigant → is named plaintiff in filed complaint → DV v Adalytics complaint —12May2025
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.
Read the original source 1
DV v Adalytics complaint —12May2025 → seeks damages, retraction and corrective advertising → Adalytics Research LLC
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.
Read the original source 1
DV v Adalytics complaint —12May2025 → alleges coordinated amplification → Check My Ads
2025-05-12 – 2025-05-12
Reported by the cited source
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.