DV Investors Have the Opportunity to Lead the DoubleVerify Securities Fraud Lawsuit with Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP

[You may also click here for additional information]

New York, New York--(Newsfile Corp. - June 3, 2025) - Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm, is investigating potential claims against DoubleVerify Holdings, Inc. ("DoubleVerify" or the "Company") (NYSE: DV) and reminds investors of the July 21, 2025 deadline to seek the role of lead plaintiff in a federal securities class action that has been filed against the Company.

Faruqi & Faruqi is a leading national securities law firm with offices in New York, Pennsylvania, California and Georgia. The firm has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors since its founding in 1995. See www.faruqilaw.com.

As detailed below, the complaint alleges that the Company and its executives violated federal securities laws by making false and/or misleading statements and/or failing to disclose that: (a) 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; (b) DoubleVerify's ability to monetize on Activation Services, the Company's high-margin advertising optimization services segment, was limited because the development of its technology for closed platforms was significantly more expensive and time-consuming than disclosed to investors; (c) DoubleVerify's Activation Services in connection with certain closed platforms would take several years to monetize; (d) 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; (e) DoubleVerify systematically overbilled its customers for ad impressions served to declared bots operating out of known data center server farms; (f) DoubleVerify's risk disclosures were materially false and misleading because they characterized adverse facts that had already materialized as mere possibilities; and (g) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and/or misleading or lacked a reasonable basis.