The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased DoubleVerify Holdings, Inc. (“DoubleVerify” or the “Company”) (NYSE: DV) common stock between November 10, 2023 and February 27, 2025, inclusive (the “Class Period”). DoubleVerify investors have until July 21, 2025 to file a lead plaintiff motion.

What Happened?

On May 7, 2024, DoubleVerify released its first quarter 2024 financial results and reduced its 2024 revenue guidance, disclosing that there had been a pullback in customer spending on advertising. On this news, DoubleVerify’s stock price fell $11.79, or 38.6%, to close at $18.78 per share on May 8, 2024, thereby injuring investors.

Then, on February 27, 2025, DoubleVerify reported lower-than-expected fourth quarter 2024 sales and earnings due in part to reduced customer spending. The Company also disclosed that the shift of ad dollars from open exchanges to closed platforms was having a negative impact on the Company. On this news, DoubleVerify’s stock price fell $7.83, or 36%, to close at $13.90 per share on February 28, 2025.

Then, on March 28, 2025, Adalytics Research, LLC published a report alleging, among other things, that DoubleVerify’s web advertisement verification and fraud protection services were ineffective and that its customers were regularly billed for ad impressions served to bots. The same day, The Wall Street Journal reported that DoubleVerify regularly missed detection of nonhuman traffic despite the Company’s claims that it helps brands avoid serving ads to nonhuman bot accounts.

What Is The Lawsuit About?

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) 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; (2) 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; (3) DoubleVerify’s Activation Services in connection with certain closed platforms would take several years to monetize; (4) 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; (5) DoubleVerify systematically overbilled its customers for ad impressions served to declared bots operating out of known data center server farms; (6) DoubleVerify’s risk disclosures were materially false and misleading because they characterized adverse facts that had already materialized as mere possibilities; and (7) as a result, Defendants’ positive statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.