How Ad Tech Wound Up Monetizing Sanctioned Russian Websites

Several leading ad-tech companies, including Google and Criteo, are alleged to have monetized Russian-backed websites sanctioned by the U.S. government in a recent report published by industry watchdog Check My Ads. The findings highlight just some of the ongoing loopholes in the complex ad-tech sector that mean it continues to struggle with brand safety issues, namely the lack of an industry-wide definition of misinformation and disinformation. Sanction violations? Last month, the Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced sanctions on Russian intelligence disinformation outlets, including FSB-controlled sites SouthFront and NewsFront, that worked to “covertly influence" U.S. election processes and institutions. However, a subsequent report from Check My Ads alleged several scaled ad-tech companies were still serving ads on those websites, apparently in violation of U.S. sanctions. Saskia Rietbroek, executive director of the Association of Certified Sanctions Specialists, said U.S. persons cannot have any business dealings with sanctioned entities, meaning companies should not have been running ads on these websites. "Sanctions compliance is not just about filling out government forms and paying a fine," explained Rietbroek. "It is also about the criminal sanctions laws and their 20-year prison terms. It can be dramatic." Those alleged to have monetized the sanctioned sites included Google and The Trade Desk, in addition to AcuityAds, Criteo, Zeta Global's Disqus, InfoLinks, NextRoll, OpenX, Tremor Video's RhythmOne, Sovrn and Taboola—all of whom stopped working with the sanctioned websites once Check My Ads notified them. “Google complies with all applicable sanctions and trade compliance laws," said a Google spokesperson. "If we find that an account violates these laws, we take appropriate action.” OpenX and Xandr declined to comment, while other companies named in the report did not respond to requests for comment. Adweek was unable to reach OFAC to clarify whether or not punitive measures will be taken. The slow development of a definition Many advertisers employ brand safety technologies to prevent their ads from appearing next to objectional content. Although sources claim technologies aren’t able to block ads from appearing against disinformation, mostly because there’s no set industry definition for those terms. Investors Want Proof That Digital Ads Aren’t Funding Misinformation A Criteo spokesperson said the company is committed to complying with OFAC sanctions and doesn’t want to run ads on sites that intentionally spread disinformation, but there’s no tech to ensure that happens. “There is no industry-wide solution available to help us detect misinformation or disinformation today,” added the spokesperson. "In the event we discover that a publisher violates our supply guidelines in any way, we immediately review and take swift action.” But tech companies didn’t have to define disinformation in this case. They just needed to comply with the law. “The lack of a definition is more of an excuse than a reason, than a justification," said Danny Rogers, cofounder and CTO of the Global Disinformation Index. "I mean, in this case it was very simple. The Treasury Department handed them a list.” The lack of consensus on "misinformation" is despite the publication of a 13-page 4A's paper last October that expressly defined such content plus ways to curb the ad-supported funding of such falsehoods: “the presentation of verifiably false or misleading claims that are likely to cause harm,” according to the 4A's report that proceeds to define verifiability, false or misleading claims, and harm. That said, Marla Kaplowitz, president and CEO of the 4A’s, told Adweek that working group discussions within the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM)—a group that includes Facebook, Twitter, TikTok, YouTube, General Motors, GroupM, P&G, and the IAB Tech Lab—are taking place to potentially agree upon the 4A’s definition of disinformation. Financial incentives aren't there Supply-side platforms tend to use a mix of automation and manual checks when onboarding publishers, plus they periodically vet their content for compliance. But websites, even ones sanctioned by the U.S. government, still fall through the cracks. A spokesperson for demand-side platform NextRoll said the company has subsequently blocked the sanctioned Russian sites identified in Check My Ads' April 28 report—the company maintains it only spent $38 on the SouthFront website for all of April—and placed the onus on SSPs as the first line of defense. “We rely on our SSP partners to aggregate publisher inventory and apply quality standards,” said the NextRoll spokesperson. “Looking at the specific issue of disinformation content, if a website slips through and is approved by the SSPs, unless the site also has fraudulent (bot) traffic, there is no way for any DSP to know the content of the website is disinformation, and the majority of the time, it’s addressed reactively.” Ratko Vidaković, founder of programmatic consultancy AdProfs, said identifying and blocking disinformation is still a relatively new challenge for the ad industry and rules are still being written, but there isn’t much of a financial incentive for intermediaries to immediately solve this problem. “All the ad-tech companies are considered like pipes, then the more volume that flows through it, the more money everybody makes,” he said. “So, at a very crude level there's really no ... direct financial incentive to eliminate a huge chunk of that volume.”