FTC Blocks Collusion Among Major Ad Agencies Over Brand Safety Rules

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC), together with a coalition of states, has intervened to stop collusion among the largest U.S. advertising agencies that compromised competition in the digital advertising market. Since 2018, WPP, Publicis, and Dentsu, supported by competitors Omnicom and IPG, unlawfully coordinated to impose common “brand safety” standards through trade associations, affecting how misinformation was handled in digital advertising.

The FTC’s complaint alleges that these agencies operated via groups such as the World Federation of Advertisers’ Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM) and the American Association of Advertising Agencies’ Advertiser Protection Bureau (APB) to establish a “Brand Safety Floor.” Under this agreement, websites deemed to contain misinformation were categorized as falling below acceptable standards and became at risk of losing advertising revenue. Firms like NewsGuard and the Global Disinformation Index played roles in labeling content, which reportedly led to the demonetization of certain political viewpoints.

This coordinated conduct replaced competitive pressures that typically encourage advertisers to seek brand safety solutions tailored to their specific needs, offering better quality or pricing. Instead, the collusion insulated the agencies from competition, limiting choices for advertisers and affecting the diversity of content monetized across the digital landscape.

To resolve these charges, the agencies have agreed to a proposed order that would prohibit future agreements setting common brand safety standards or excluding digital ad placements based on biased or politically motivated criteria. The orders for Omnicom and IPG are parallel to those agreed upon by WPP, Publicis, and Dentsu.

Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson emphasized that the conspiracy disrupted normal market competition and harmed the marketplace of ideas by discriminating against speech deemed unacceptable under the coordinated standards. He noted the FTC’s action restores competition and prevents anti-competitive boycotts in ad-buying services.

The FTC complaint and final order were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas with participation by states including Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Montana, Nebraska, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia. The order requires judicial approval before going into effect. The district court has since approved and finalized the orders.

Why it matters

This enforcement action addresses anti-competitive conduct that not only limited market innovation and pricing in digital advertising but also impacted the democratic discourse by restricting ad revenue based on politically influenced content judgments. By dismantling the collusion, the FTC aims to promote a more open and competitive digital advertising ecosystem, ensuring advertisers can select brand safety tools aligned with varied needs and values.

Background

Digital advertising agencies buy ad inventory on behalf of brands and compete by offering differing standards and tools that manage brand safety—measures advertisers use to avoid associating their ads with harmful or controversial content. Brand safety has grown in importance as online misinformation and disinformation have become focal points in digital media. Trade associations like GARM and APB historically coordinate industry standards, but the FTC found that these agencies crossed legal lines by setting uniform standards that effectively limited competition and manipulated the market.

Read more Digital Policy stories on Goka World News.