FTC targets ad agency coordination on brand safety rules

The US Federal Trade Commission says three of the world’s biggest advertising holding groups agreed on common “brand safety” rules that effectively reduced ad revenue for publishers whose content was lawful but unpopular with parts of the industry.

In a complaint filed in federal court in Texas, the FTC alleges that WPP, Dentsu and Publicis coordinated policies that limited advertising on sites tagged as “misinformation”, and did so through trade-association work rather than competing on their own standards. The agency says the arrangement created a “brand safety floor” that advertisers and agencies could treat as a default baseline, according to Breitbart’s account of the filing.

The enforcement action targets a mechanism that sits between most publishers and most advertisers: the agencies and standards bodies that define what counts as acceptable inventory at scale. When those definitions are harmonised, the practical effect is not just reputational; it is mechanical. A publisher can remain online, but lose access to the ad budgets that keep newsrooms afloat, while larger outlets with diversified revenue streams absorb the same exclusions as a cost of doing business.

The FTC’s filing, as described by Breitbart, points to the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM), an initiative under the World Federation of Advertisers, as the venue where agencies and other participants developed and promoted the shared standards. The complaint also highlights internal discussions about expanding the definition of “misinformation” beyond false statements to include “willfully misleading” content — a category that can hinge on editorial framing rather than factual accuracy.

According to the FTC, one November 2021 exchange cited in the filing proposed adding “willfully misleading” content so that advertising revenue could be denied to Breitbart specifically, with the rationale that the outlet might use “facts selectively to mislead”. That is a different kind of gatekeeping than blocking scams or illegal material: it treats the interpretation of true facts as a brand-safety risk.

The agencies deny wrongdoing while agreeing to settle. WPP said in a statement that the agreement reflects its “existing and ongoing commitment” to give clients “unbiased advice” on media placement, Breitbart reports. Dentsu said it is committed to operating “transparently” and in compliance with the law. Publicis did not respond to a comment request cited in the article.

The FTC is also signalling that the infrastructure outlives the organisation. Breitbart reports that even after GARM was dissolved, WPP circulated a memo saying it would continue to abide by GARM standards, and Dentsu joined a research initiative described publicly as a way to continue the defunct group’s work.

For publishers, the immediate question is not whether “brand safety” exists — advertisers have always avoided certain contexts — but whether a handful of intermediaries can standardise the definition of unacceptable speech across the market without calling it a boycott. The FTC’s complaint is an attempt to treat that standardisation as an antitrust problem rather than a culture-war argument.

The settlement now sits on court filings and compliance language. The advertising rules that determine which news sites can sell inventory remain largely private.