Do ad reports since 2024 show unreliable sites getting more ad money over time?
Research question: Do ad-industry transparency or brand-safety reports (such as ads.txt or sellers.json audits, or vendor reports) published since 2024 quantify ad spend reaching sites rated unreliable, and do they show a change over time?
The records show that about 11% of worldwide website ad spend went to made-for-advertising (MFA) sites, according to eMarketer 1. A separate source puts the share at about 13% of US and global programmatic ad spending, and describes MFA sites as a low-quality category that the problem still affects 2. Neither figure is dated in the facts provided, and no comparison across periods is given, so the records do not show a change over time or confirm that either estimate was published since 2024 12. A DoubleVerify filing dated April 7, 2026 is a risk-factor disclosure about site categorization and does not quantify spend on unreliable sites 3. The newest fact is that April 2026 filing, about six months old as of October 2026 3.
Sources
"Key stat: 11% of worldwide website ad spend went to made-for-advertising (MFA..."More than 1 in 10 website ad dollars goes to made-for-advertising sites
"Thirteen percent of US and global programmatic ad spending went to"The made for advertising problem is still plaguing programmatic ad spend
"how we categorize specific sites in the course of our normal business operations exposes us to risks from publishers or advertisers who may disagree with our categorizations"ARS DoubleVerify Holdings, Inc. (DV) (CIK 0001819928) 2026-04-07