Why It Matters

DoubleVerify Inc. is moving lobbying in-house for the first time, signaling heightened urgency around federal policy engagement. The company faces acute congressional scrutiny after Senators Marsha Blackburn and Richard Blumenthal publicly named DoubleVerify as having "failed to prevent" advertisements on websites hosting child sexual abuse material.

The policy landscape presents both risks and opportunities. The bipartisan AMERICA Act seeks to restructure digital advertising markets by preventing large ad tech firms from owning multiple stack components—potentially validating demand for independent verification services. However, congressional skepticism about verification vendor effectiveness threatens client confidence in DoubleVerify’s core offering.

DoubleVerify previously spent $770,000 on external lobbying through Subject Matter ($290,000) and Avoq LLC ($480,000) since August 2022. The company’s new in-house lobbyist, Brooke Frankenfield Kintz, brings AI policy experience from SambaNova Systems Inc.—expertise directly applicable to navigating both antitrust reform and emerging AI governance debates.

By the Numbers

DoubleVerify’s new in-house operation, registered January 15, 2025, is led by Kintz, a veteran technology lobbyist. Her portfolio includes work with Tesla Inc. on autonomous vehicle regulation and the Associated Builders and Contractors Inc. on workforce issues.

The company’s lobbying agenda focuses on digital advertising, platform technology, privacy, and artificial intelligence issues. This represents DoubleVerify’s first foray into in-house government relations, signaling that federal policy engagement has become a core strategic priority for the publicly traded ad tech firm.

The Agenda

DoubleVerify is lobbying on digital advertising, technology, privacy, and artificial intelligence issues amid intense congressional scrutiny of the ad tech market. Congress is pursuing aggressive antitrust action against Google’s ad tech dominance, with bipartisan momentum behind the AMERICA Act to restructure the industry.

The company faces a precarious position. Antitrust reform could increase demand for independent verification in fragmented markets. But the brand safety failures leave DoubleVerify vulnerable to liability or mandated compliance standards. Bringing lobbying in-house allows the company to directly engage policymakers—defending against skepticism while positioning verification technology as a solution to congressional concerns.

Broader Context

DoubleVerify is entering federal lobbying at a pivotal moment for digital advertising. The DOJ’s victory establishing Google as an illegal monopolist in ad tech has intensified antitrust scrutiny, while the bipartisan AMERICA Act pushes to prevent large platforms from owning multiple parts of the ad stack.

More immediately, DoubleVerify faces acute reputational jeopardy. In February 2025, researchers found that DoubleVerify and competitor Integral Ad Science marked pages containing child sexual abuse material as "100% safe," sparking direct congressional condemnation.

The company also confronts evolving privacy regulations and state-level AI governance efforts that could reshape programmatic advertising. By moving lobbying in-house with experienced tech lobbyist Kintz, DoubleVerify can defend against brand safety skepticism while positioning its verification technology as essential to stricter regulatory regimes Congress may impose.

Between The Lines

Congress is intensifying scrutiny of digital advertising with significant implications for DoubleVerify’s business model. A federal court found Google illegally monopolized key portions of the digital advertising market, with the case proceeding to determine structural remedies. The bipartisan AMERICA Act continues gaining momentum, designed to prevent large ad tech companies from owning multiple parts of the advertising stack.

Senators directly criticized DoubleVerify and Integral Ad Science for failing to prevent ads on websites hosting child sexual abuse material. This congressional condemnation represents acute reputational jeopardy and raises questions about verification vendor effectiveness.

States have enacted approximately 700 AI and privacy-related bills in 2024, with several imposing restrictions on targeted advertising. The regulatory environment presents a paradox: while brand safety failures threaten client confidence, antitrust action could expand DoubleVerify’s addressable market by increasing demand for independent measurement.

Competitive Landscape

DoubleVerify operates in a crowded lobbying space. Zeta Global Corp. retains multiple firms to lobby on consumer data privacy, digital advertising, and AI. Eyeo GmbH also lobbies on digital advertising issues.

Most significantly, DoubleVerify’s primary competitor, Integral Ad Science, faces identical congressional scrutiny. Both firms were explicitly named for failing to prevent ad placements on websites hosting child sexual abuse material. This shared vulnerability creates competitive pressure for both companies to actively shape policy responses and position their verification services as solutions to regulatory mandates.

The Bottom Line

DoubleVerify is shifting to in-house lobbying amid existential threats to its core business. The company faces direct congressional condemnation after verification failures, while navigating aggressive antitrust enforcement reshaping the ad tech market. By hiring experienced technology lobbyist Kintz, DoubleVerify is attempting to reframe its verification technology as a solution to congressional concerns. The AMERICA Act and Google antitrust remedies could ultimately increase demand for independent verification, but only if policymakers view verification vendors as credible partners rather than complicit failures.

Access the Legis1 platform for comprehensive political news, data, and insights.

Spot something wrong? Report an issue with this article