Trade Desk, Inc.

Previous wording

In most cases, we enter into separate contracts and billing relationships with the individual agencies and account for them as separate clients. However, some holding companies for these agencies may choose to exert control over the individual agencies in the future. Additionally, a holding company may be acquired by, or consolidate with, another holding company that does not utilize our platform, or may otherwise reduce overall spend on our platform as a result of an acquisition or consolidation. If so, any consolidation of, or loss of relationships with such holding companies and consequently, of their agencies, local branches or divisions, as clients could significantly harm our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Current wording

In most cases, we enter into separate contracts and billing relationships with the individual agencies and account for them as separate clients. A holding company may be acquired by, or consolidate with, another holding company that does not utilize our platform, or a holding company may choose to exert control over its individual agencies in a way that may otherwise result in an overall reduction in our revenue. If so, any consolidation of, or loss of relationships with such holding companies and consequently, of their agencies, local branches or divisions, as clients could significantly harm our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Previous wording

The substantial majority of our revenue has been derived from clients that programmatically purchase advertising through our platform. We expect that spend on programmatic ad buying will continue to be our primary source of revenue for the foreseeable future and that our revenue growth will largely depend on increasing spend through our platform. The market for programmatic ad buying is a relatively new market, and our current and potential clients may not shift to programmatic ad buying from other buying methods as quickly as we expect, which would reduce our growth potential. If the market for programmatic ad buying deteriorates or develops more slowly than we expect, it could reduce demand for our platform, and our business, growth prospects and financial condition would be adversely affected.

Current wording

The substantial majority of our revenue has been derived from clients that programmatically purchase advertising through our platform. We expect that programmatic ad buying will continue to be our primary source of revenue for the foreseeable future and that our revenue growth will largely depend on increasing spend on our platform and related offerings. The market for programmatic ad buying is a relatively new market, and our current and potential clients may not shift to programmatic ad buying from other buying methods as quickly as we expect, which would reduce our growth potential. If the market for programmatic ad buying deteriorates or develops more slowly than we expect, it could reduce demand for our platform, and our business, growth prospects and financial condition would be adversely affected.

Previous wording

Inventory suppliers control the bidding process, rules and procedures for the inventory they supply. Such processes may not always work in our favor or for the benefit of our clients and may create inefficiencies in the supply chain for advertising inventory. Although we have in the past and continue to undertake efforts to address these supply chain inefficiencies, we may not be successful in such efforts. Given the importance of ensuring access to quality inventory for our advertisers, we launched our OpenPath offering in order to give clients a simplified, direct connection to publishers. We have been investing in this offering and plan to continue to grow the amount of OpenPath inventory and publishers available through our platform, but we cannot guarantee that this or future offerings will prove attractive to our clients or otherwise be successful.

Current wording

Inventory suppliers control the bidding process, rules and procedures for the inventory they supply. Additionally, suppliers and other third parties in the programmatic supply chain may extract more value than they add. As a result, supply chains in the market for programmatic ad buying may not always work in our favor or for the benefit of our clients and may have inefficiencies and lack transparency. Although we have in the past and continue to undertake efforts to improve supply chain efficiency and transparency, we may not be successful in such efforts. Given the importance of ensuring access to quality inventory for our advertisers, we launched our OpenPath offering in order to give clients a simplified, direct connection to publishers. We have been investing in this offering and plan to continue to grow the amount of OpenPath inventory and publishers available through our platform, but we cannot guarantee that this or future offerings will prove attractive to our clients or otherwise be successful.

Previous wording

We operate in a highly competitive and rapidly changing industry. We expect competition to persist and intensify in the future, which could harm our ability to increase revenue and maintain profitability. New technologies and methods of buying advertising present a dynamic competitive challenge, as market participants develop and offer new products and services aimed at capturing advertising spend or disrupting the digital marketing landscape, such as analytics, automated media buying and exchanges.

Current wording

We operate in a highly competitive and rapidly changing industry. We expect competition to persist and intensify in the future, which could harm our ability to increase revenue and maintain profitability. New technologies and methods of buying advertising present a dynamic competitive challenge, as market participants develop and offer new products and services aimed at capturing advertising spend or disrupting the digital marketing landscape, such as analytics, automated media buying and exchanges. Additionally, the impact of AI on our industry is still emerging and uncertain. We have been developing and implementing AI and machine learning models in our platform for nearly a decade and plan to continue such efforts, but there can be no assurance that our implementation of AI will continue to enhance our platform and related offerings in the manner we expect. To the extent we fail to adopt such technologies effectively or experience delays in integrating these technologies into our operations or our competitors successfully implement improved AI technologies into their products or services, our ability to compete effectively could be harmed and our growth prospects and results of operations could be adversely affected.

Previous wording

Our current and potential competitors may have significantly more financial, technical, marketing, and other resources than we have, which may allow them to devote greater resources to the development, promotion, sale and support of their products and services. They may also have more extensive advertiser bases and broader publisher relationships than we have, rich first-party data sets, may be better positioned to execute on advertising conducted over certain channels, such as social media, mobile, and video and in the case of “walled garden” inventory providers, may exclusively sell their own inventory directly to advertisers, which prevents us from competing with them entirely for such inventory. Some of our competitors may have a longer operating history and greater name recognition. As a result, these competitors may be better able to respond quickly to new technologies, develop superior solutions, develop deeper advertiser relationships or offer services at lower prices. Any of these developments would make it more difficult for us to sell our platform or related offerings and could result in increased pricing pressure, increased development, sales and marketing expense, or the loss of market share.

Current wording

Furthermore, our current and potential competitors may have significantly more financial, technical, marketing, and other resources than we have, which may allow them to devote greater resources to the development, promotion, sale and support of their products and services. They may also have more extensive advertiser bases and broader publisher relationships than we have, rich first party data sets, may be better positioned to execute on advertising conducted over certain channels, such as social media, mobile, and video and in the case of “walled garden” inventory providers, may exclusively sell their own inventory directly to advertisers, which prevents us from competing with them entirely for such inventory. Some of our competitors may have a longer operating history and greater name recognition. As a result, these competitors may be better able to respond quickly to new technologies, develop superior solutions, develop deeper advertiser relationships or offer services at lower prices. Any of these developments would make it more difficult for us to sell our platform or related offerings and could result in increased pricing pressure, increased development, sales and marketing expense, or the loss of market share.

Previous wording

Our industry is subject to rapid and frequent changes in technology and laws governing our activities, evolving client needs and expectations and the frequent introduction by our competitors of new and enhanced offerings. If new or existing competitors have more attractive offerings, we may lose clients or clients may decrease their use of our platform. New client demands, superior competitive offerings or new industry standards could require us to make unanticipated and costly changes to our platform or business model. We must constantly make investment decisions regarding new and existing offerings and technology to meet client demand and evolving industry and legal standards. We may make bad decisions regarding these investments. Furthermore, even if we believe that our investments improve or supplement our platform and related offerings, such as updates to our various platform features and user interface, they may nevertheless fail to meet new or existing client expectations or preferences, which could result in decreased client adoption or use of our platform.

Current wording

Our industry is subject to rapid and frequent changes in technology and laws governing our activities, evolving client needs and expectations and the frequent introduction by our competitors of new and enhanced offerings. If new or existing competitors have more attractive offerings, we may lose clients or clients may decrease their use of our platform. New client demands, superior competitive offerings or new industry standards could require us to make unanticipated and costly changes to our platform or business model. We must constantly make investment decisions regarding new and existing offerings and technology to meet client demand and evolving industry and legal standards. We may make bad decisions regarding these investments, and our efforts to introduce new or upgraded platform features or related offerings, including, for example, those related to third-party data marketplace features, may not function as intended or result in the improvements we expect. Furthermore, even if we believe that our investments improve or supplement our platform and related offerings, such as updates to our various platform features and user interface, they may nevertheless fail to meet new or existing client expectations or preferences, which could result in decreased client adoption or use of our platform and related offerings.

Previous wording

In addition, as we develop and introduce new offerings, including those incorporating or utilizing artificial intelligence and machine learning and new processing of personal information, including identifiable information, they may raise new, or heighten existing, technological, security, legal and other risks and challenges, which may cause unintended consequences, and they may not function properly or may be misused by our clients. If we fail to adapt to our rapidly changing industry or to evolving client needs or expectations, or we provide new or updated offerings that exacerbate technological, security, legal or other challenges, the reputation of and demand for our platform or related offerings could decrease and our business, financial condition and operations may be adversely affected. In addition to competitive, regulatory and marketplace uncertainties in the ecosystem, we also anticipate that evolution of the use of artificial intelligence and machine learning in digital advertising may create challenges and further ecosystem uncertainty, which can be difficult to predict.

Current wording

In addition, as we introduce new offerings and further develop existing ones, including in both cases those that increasingly incorporate or utilize AI and machine learning or the processing of personal information, including identifiable information, they may raise new, or heighten existing, technological, security, legal, commercial and other risks and challenges, which may cause unintended consequences, and they may not function properly or may be misused by our clients. If we fail to adapt to our rapidly changing industry or to evolving client needs or expectations, or we provide new or updated offerings that exacerbate technological, security, legal or other challenges, the reputation of and demand for our platform or related offerings could decrease and our business, financial condition and operations may be adversely affected. In addition to competitive, regulatory and marketplace uncertainties in the ecosystem, we also anticipate that evolution of the use of AI and machine learning in digital advertising may create challenges and further ecosystem uncertainty, which can be difficult to predict.

Previous wording

Information relating to individuals and their devices (commonly called “personal information” or “personal data”) is regulated under a wide variety of local, state, national and international laws and regulations that apply to its collection, use, retention, protection, disclosure, transfer (including transfer across national boundaries) and other processing. We typically collect and store IP addresses and other device identifiers (such as unique cookie identifiers and mobile advertising identifiers), which are or may be considered personal data or personal information in many jurisdictions or otherwise subject to regulation. In connection with certain of our offerings, including Unified ID 2.0, EUID and OpenPass, we receive information that directly identifies individuals, such as email addresses and phone numbers, both directly from consumers and from our clients or others. We deploy technical and security measures, internal policy controls, and contractual measures to limit how such identifying information is used and shared. Nevertheless, we cannot guarantee any such measures or controls will be effective and handling identifying information increases our exposure under privacy and data protection laws. Some of our offerings, including those that entail some use of directly identifying information, may also increase our exposure to potential claims by plaintiffs’ attorneys, including by attempting to apply various legal theories – such as alleging violations of wiretapping statutes – to certain our activities. For example, in March 2025, suits alleging various wiretapping and privacy tort theories were filed against us in the Northern District of California. For additional information regarding the pending legal proceedings, refer to “Item 1. Legal Proceedings.”

Current wording

Information relating to individuals and their devices (commonly called “personal information” or “personal data”) is regulated under a wide variety of local, state, national and international laws and regulations that apply to its collection, use, retention, protection, disclosure, transfer (including across national boundaries) and other processing. We typically collect and store IP addresses and other device identifiers (such as unique cookie identifiers and mobile advertising identifiers), which are or may be considered personal data or personal information in many jurisdictions or otherwise subject to regulation. In connection with certain of our offerings, including Unified ID 2.0, EUID and OpenPass, we receive information that directly identifies individuals, such as email addresses and phone numbers, both directly from consumers and from our clients or others. We deploy technical and security measures, internal policy controls, and contractual measures to limit how such identifying information is used and shared. Nevertheless, we cannot guarantee any such measures or controls will be effective and handling identifying information increases our exposure under privacy and data protection laws. Some of our offerings, including those that entail some use of directly identifying information, may also increase our exposure to potential claims by plaintiffs’ attorneys, including by attempting to apply various legal theories – such as alleging violations of wiretapping statutes – to certain of our activities. For example, in March 2025, suits alleging various wiretapping and privacy tort theories were filed against us in the Northern District of California. For additional information regarding the pending legal proceedings, refer to “Item 1. Legal Proceedings.”

Previous wording

Act”) (which prohibits “unfair” and “deceptive” trade practices) to investigate companies engaging in online tracking. For example, in the preceding few years, the FTC has been very active in bringing enforcement actions against companies that handle personal data it views as sensitive for advertising purposes, including location data brokers and companies that process health-related data. The Commission could continue to build on this trend under its authority to enforce a relatively new federal law focused on disclosures of certain “sensitive” information by companies operating as data brokers to certain restricted countries or entities “controlled” by such countries, and the Department of Justice could act on authority granted under an executive order restricting similar practices, for which regulations and guidance have recently been issued. Other companies in the advertising technology space have been subject to government investigation by regulatory bodies; advocacy organizations have also filed complaints with data protection authorities against advertising technology companies, arguing that certain of these companies’ practices do not comply with data privacy laws, or consumer protection laws such as the FTC Act. As noted above, plaintiffs’ attorneys are also increasingly exploring theories under which to pursue claims against advertising technology companies related to their data collection, use and disclosure practices, as well as advertisers and publishers that rely on services provided by these companies. For example, in March 2025, suits alleging various privacy tort theories were filed against us in the Northern District of California. For additional information regarding the pending legal proceedings, refer to “Item 1. Legal Proceedings.” We cannot avoid the possibility that one of these investigations or enforcement actions will require us to alter our practices. In addition, a potential federal omnibus privacy law remains a possibility. If ultimately passed, such a law would likely substantially impact the online advertising ecosystem.

Current wording

The global regulatory landscape regarding the privacy and protection of personal information is evolving, and U.S. (state, federal and local) and foreign governments continue to consider and enact additional legislation and rulemaking related to privacy and data protection, often with a particular focus on intermediaries in the online advertising ecosystem, including those that engage in targeted advertising, “sell” or “share” personal data, and act as “data brokers.” We expect to see an increase in, or changes to, privacy and data protection legislation and regulation in this area for the foreseeable future. For example, the FTC uses its enforcement powers under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (the “FTC Act”) (which prohibits “unfair” and “deceptive” trade practices) to investigate companies engaging in online tracking. For example, in the preceding few years, the FTC has been very active in bringing enforcement actions against companies that handle personal data it views as sensitive for advertising purposes, including location data brokers and companies that process health-related data. The Commission could continue to build on this trend under its authority to enforce a relatively new federal law focused on disclosures of certain “sensitive” information by companies operating as data brokers to certain restricted countries or entities “controlled” by such countries, and the Department of Justice could act on authority granted under an executive order restricting similar practices, for which regulations and guidance have recently been issued. Other companies in the advertising technology space have been subject to government investigation by regulatory bodies; advocacy organizations have also filed complaints with data protection authorities against advertising technology companies, arguing that certain of these companies’ practices do not comply with data privacy laws, or consumer protection laws such as the FTC Act. As noted above, plaintiffs’ attorneys are also increasingly exploring theories under which to pursue claims against advertising technology companies related to their data collection, use and disclosure practices, as well as advertisers and publishers that rely on services provided by these companies. For example, in March 2025, suits alleging various privacy tort theories were filed against us in the Northern District of California. For additional information regarding the pending legal proceedings, refer to “Item 1. Legal Proceedings.” We cannot avoid the possibility that one of these investigations or enforcement actions will require us to alter our practices. In addition, a potential federal omnibus privacy law remains a possibility. If ultimately passed, such a law would likely substantially impact the online advertising ecosystem.

Previous wording

State lawmakers are also actively addressing consumer data privacy issues. Many states have adopted omnibus consumer privacy laws, a host of which are already enforceable, while others will take effect over the coming years. These state laws define “personal information” broadly enough to include many online identifiers provided by individuals’ devices, applications, and protocols (such as IP addresses, mobile advertising identifiers and unique cookie identifiers), individuals’ location data, and hashed versions of email addresses and phone numbers. These laws generally require covered businesses to meet numerous data privacy-related obligations and establish data privacy rights for consumers in such states (including rights to opt out of certain processing of their personal data and to request correction, deletion of and access to personal data), imposing special rules on the collection of personal data from minors and other personal data deemed “sensitive” under the laws, and creating new notice obligations. Many also impose data minimization requirements, mandating that companies only collect and process data for certain purposes. Most significant for the advertising industry, however, these laws require businesses that engage in certain advertising uses of personal data to offer and honor an opt-out of such activities, including, in some states, through browser or device-based preference signals. (Terminology varies slightly among some of the state laws, tying the opt-out requirement to “targeted advertising,” “sales” or “sharing” of personal data.) Because of these obligations, the availability of data within our platform, our related offerings and the advertising ecosystem more broadly may decline, potentially making our platform and related offerings less valuable to our clients.

Current wording

State lawmakers are also actively addressing consumer data privacy issues. Many states have adopted omnibus consumer privacy laws, a host of which are already enforceable, while others will take effect over the coming years. These state laws define “personal information” broadly enough to include many online identifiers provided by individuals’ devices, applications, and protocols (such as IP addresses, mobile advertising identifiers and unique cookie identifiers), individuals’ location data, and hashed versions of email addresses and phone numbers. These laws generally require covered businesses to meet numerous data privacy-related obligations and establish data privacy rights for consumers in such states (including rights to opt out of certain processing of their personal data and to request correction, deletion of and access to personal data), imposing special rules on the collection of personal data from minors, precise location data and other personal data deemed “sensitive” under the laws, and creating new notice and consent obligations. Many also impose data minimization requirements, mandating that companies only collect and process data for certain purposes. In a recent enforcement action, the California Attorney General employed these data minimization standards to attack advertising-related disclosures by a publisher of health-related information. Perhaps most significant for the advertising industry, however, these laws require businesses that engage in certain advertising uses of personal data to offer and honor an opt-out of such activities, including, in some states, through browser or device-based preference signals. (Terminology varies slightly among some of the state laws, tying the opt-out requirement to “targeted advertising,” “sales” or “sharing” of personal data.) Because of these obligations, the availability of data within our platform, our related offerings and the advertising ecosystem more broadly may decline, potentially making our platform and related offerings less valuable to our clients.

Previous wording

The requirement under certain states’ laws to honor users’ requests to opt out of certain disclosures and uses of data for advertising purposes through preference signals, such as the Global Privacy Control (“GPC”) or similar signals, reflects a broader attention that privacy advocates, the media and some government regulators, such as the FTC, have devoted to digital advertising in recent years. If the use of the GPC or similar technical signals is adopted by many Internet users, is imposed by additional states or by federal or foreign legislation or is agreed upon by standard setting groups, we may have to change our business practices, our clients may reduce their use of our platform and related offerings, and our business could be harmed.

Current wording

The requirement under certain states’ laws to honor users’ requests to opt out of certain disclosures and uses of data for advertising purposes through preference signals, such as the Global Privacy Control (“GPC”) or similar signals, reflects a broader attention that privacy advocates, the media and some government regulators, such as the FTC, have devoted to digital advertising in recent years. California and other state regulators recently announced an enforcement sweep focused on how companies honor these signals and California recently passed a law that will require all browsers to support the sending of these signals, which is likely to increase the number of browsers sending these signals. If the use of the GPC or similar technical signals is adopted by many Internet users, is imposed by additional states or by federal or foreign legislation or is agreed upon by standard setting groups, we may have to change our business practices, our clients may reduce their use of our platform and related offerings, and our business could be harmed.

Previous wording

Laws governing the processing of personal data in Europe (including the U.K. and EEA) also continue to impact us and continue to evolve. For example, the GDPR defines “personal data” broadly and enhances data protection obligations for controllers of such data and for service providers processing the data. It also provides certain rights, such as access and deletion, to the individuals about whom the personal data relates. IAB Europe previously collaborated with the digital advertising industry to create a user-facing framework (the Transparency and Control Framework, or “TCF”) for establishing and managing legal bases under the GDPR and other U.K. and EU privacy laws including the ePrivacy Directive. Although the TCF is actively in use, its viability as a compliance mechanism remains under review by European authorities and we cannot predict its effectiveness over the long term. Because we are under the supervision of relevant data protection authorities in both the EEA and the U.K., we may be fined under both the EU GDPR and the UK GDPR for the same breach, with penalties up to the greater of €20 million/BP 17.5 million or 4% of total worldwide annual turnover. In addition to fines, breach of the GDPR can also result in regulatory investigations, enforcement notices, and civil claims. Continuing to maintain compliance with the requirements of the GDPR, including monitoring and adjusting to rulings and interpretations that affect our approach to compliance, requires significant time, resources and expense, as will the effort to monitor whether additional changes to our business practices and our backend configuration are needed, all of which may increase operating costs, or limit our ability to operate or expand our business.

Current wording

Laws governing the processing of personal data in Europe (including the U.K. and EEA) also continue to impact us and to evolve. For example, the GDPR defines “personal data” broadly and enhances data protection obligations for controllers of such data and for service providers processing the data. It also provides certain rights, such as access and deletion, to the individuals about whom the personal data relates. IAB Europe previously collaborated with the digital advertising industry to create a user-facing framework (the Transparency and Control Framework, or “TCF”) for establishing and managing legal bases under the GDPR and other U.K. and EU privacy laws including the ePrivacy Directive. Although the TCF is actively in use, its viability as a compliance mechanism remains under review by European authorities and we cannot predict its effectiveness over the long term. Because we are under the supervision of relevant data protection authorities in both the EEA and the U.K., we may be fined under both the EU GDPR and the UK GDPR for the same breach, with penalties up to the greater of €20 million/BP 17.5 million or 4% of total worldwide annual turnover. In addition to fines, breach of the GDPR can also result in regulatory investigations, enforcement notices, and civil claims. Continuing to maintain compliance with the requirements of the GDPR, including monitoring and adjusting to rulings and interpretations that affect our approach to compliance, requires significant time, resources and expense, as will the effort to monitor whether additional changes to our business practices and our backend configuration are needed, all of which may increase operating costs, or limit our ability to operate or expand our business.

Previous wording

Data residency and cross-border transfer restrictions also impact our operations. For the transfer of personal data from Europe to the U.S., we rely upon, and are certified under, the EU-U.S. and Swiss-U.S. Data Privacy Frameworks (“DPF”) and the U.K. extension to the EU-U.S. DPF. The DPF replaced the Privacy Shield Framework as an adequate mechanism by which EU companies may pass personal data to the U.S. However, the DPF is already subject to legal challenge in Europe. Relatedly, whether and how other transfer mechanisms, such as standard contractual clauses, can be used to transfer personal data to the U.S. is in question. While the adequacy decision for the DPF helps to reduce the legal uncertainty of cross-border transfers of personal data, the long-term validity of these transfer mechanisms remains uncertain. If all or some jurisdictions within the EU or the U.K. determine that the latest standard contractual clauses also cannot be used to transfer personal data to the U.S. and if the DPF is ultimately struck down in a manner similar to the Privacy Shield Framework, we could be left with no reasonable option for the lawful cross-border transfer of personal data. In such circumstances, continuing to transfer personal data from the EU to the U.S. could lead to governmental enforcement actions, litigation, fines and penalties or adverse publicity. As the regulatory guidance and enforcement landscape in relation to data transfers continue to develop, we could suffer additional costs, complaints or regulatory investigations or fines; we may have to stop using certain tools and vendors and make other operational changes; we may have to implement alternative data transfer mechanisms under the GDPR or take additional compliance and operational measures, such as establishing systems to maintain certain data in the EEA, potentially involving substantial expense and causing us to divert resources from other aspects of our operations, all of which may adversely affect our business. Other jurisdictions have adopted or are considering cross-border or data residency restrictions, which could reduce the amount of data we can collect or process and, as a result, significantly impact our business.

Current wording

Data residency and cross-border transfer restrictions also impact our operations. For the transfer of personal data from Europe to the U.S., we rely upon, and are certified under, the EU-U.S. and Swiss-U.S. Data Privacy Frameworks (“DPF”) and the U.K. extension to the EU-U.S. DPF. In relation to such cross border transfers of personal information, we expect the existing legal complexity and uncertainty regarding international personal information transfers to continue. As the regulatory guidance and enforcement landscape in relation to data transfers continue to develop, we could suffer additional costs, complaints or regulatory investigations or fines; we may have to stop using certain tools and vendors and make other operational changes; we may have to implement alternative data transfer mechanisms under the GDPR or take additional compliance and operational measures, such as establishing systems to maintain certain data in the EEA, potentially involving substantial expense and causing us to divert resources from other aspects of our operations, all of which may adversely affect our business. Other jurisdictions have adopted or are considering cross-border or data residency restrictions, which could reduce the amount of data we can collect or process and, as a result, significantly impact our business.

Previous wording

Today, digital advertising, including our platform, makes significant use of cookies to store device identifiers for the advertising activities described above. When we use cookies, they are generally considered third-party cookies, which are cookies owned and used by parties other than the owners of the website visited by the Internet user. The most commonly used Internet browsers—Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer and Safari—allow Internet users to modify their browser settings to prevent some or all cookies from being accepted by their browsers. Internet users can delete cookies from their computers at any time. Additionally, some browsers currently, or may in the future, block or limit some third-party cookies by default or may implement user control settings that algorithmically block or limit some cookies. Today, three major web browsers—Apple’s Safari, Mozilla’s Firefox and Microsoft’s Edge—block third-party cookies by default. Google’s web browser, Chrome, has introduced, and is likely to continue to introduce, controls over third-party cookies. However, on April 22, 2025, Google announced that it would maintain its current approach to offering users third-party cookie choice in Chrome (thus, presumably, ending its efforts to deprecate third-party cookies in the Chrome browser), and will not be rolling out a new standalone prompt for third-party cookies in Chrome. Although we believe our platform is well-positioned to adapt to such changes, particularly with our Unified ID 2.0 offering, the impact of such changes — and broader scrutiny on the advertising technology ecosystem — remains uncertain and could be more disruptive than we anticipate, including to the display advertising ecosystem in particular, where such changes could adversely impact our growth in that channel.

Current wording

Today, digital advertising, including our platform, makes significant use of cookies to store device identifiers for the advertising activities described above. When we use cookies, they are generally considered third-party cookies, which are cookies owned and used by parties other than the owners of the website visited by the Internet user. The most commonly used Internet browsers—Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer and Safari—allow Internet users to modify their browser settings to prevent some or all cookies from being accepted by their browsers. Internet users can delete cookies from their computers at any time. Additionally, some browsers currently, or may in the future, block or limit some third-party cookies by default or may implement user control settings that algorithmically block or limit some cookies. Today, three major web browsers—Apple’s Safari, Mozilla’s Firefox and Microsoft’s Edge—block third-party cookies by default. Google’s web browser, Chrome, has introduced, and is likely to continue to introduce, controls over third-party cookies. However, on April 22, 2025, Google announced that it would maintain its current approach to offering users third-party cookie choice in Chrome (thus, presumably, ending its efforts to deprecate third-party cookies in Chrome), and will not be rolling out a new standalone prompt for third-party cookies in Chrome. Finally, other participants in the real-time bidding ecosystem could decline to provide certain identifiers or introduce user settings that reduce the number of identifiers provided to us that help us to optimize supply paths, target audiences, and measure outcomes. Although we believe our platform is well-positioned to adapt to browsers’ blocking or limitation of some cookies, particularly with our Unified ID 2.0 offering, the impact of such changes — and broader scrutiny on the advertising technology ecosystem — remains uncertain and could be more disruptive than we anticipate, including to the display advertising ecosystem in particular, where such changes could adversely impact our growth in that channel.

Previous wording

•changes in the pricing, cost or availability of supplier-provided components of value-added services and data, including pricing structure changes and the alignment of our pricing model with our data partners;

Current wording

•changes in the pricing, cost or availability of supplier-provided components of value-added services and data, including pricing structure changes and the alignment of our pricing model with our data partners, and our ability to successfully implement and rollout such changes;

Previous wording

•changes in our platform or related offerings, their features, and the mix of offerings that are adopted by our clients;

Current wording

•changes in our platform or related offerings, their features or their underlying components and design, and the mix of offerings that are adopted by our clients;

Previous wording

Our Class B common stock has ten votes per share and our Class A common stock has one vote per share. Because of the ten-to-one voting ratio between our Class B and Class A common stock, the holders of our Class B common stock collectively have substantial control of the combined voting power of our common stock. Our articles of incorporation provide that all Class B common stock will convert automatically into Class A common stock on December 22, 2025, unless converted prior to such date. As of June 30, 2025, stockholders who held shares of Class B common stock, including our executive officers, employees, and directors and their affiliates, together held approximately 49.2% of the voting power of our outstanding capital stock. This concentrated control limits or precludes your ability to influence corporate matters, as the holders of Class B common stock are able to influence or substantially control matters requiring approval by our stockholders, including the election of the directors, excluding the director we have designated as a Class A director, and the approval of mergers, acquisitions or other extraordinary transactions. Their interests may differ from yours and they may vote in a manner that is adverse to your interests. This ownership concentration may deter, delay or prevent a change of control of our company, deprive our stockholders of an opportunity to receive a premium for their common stock as part of a sale of our company and may ultimately affect the market price of our common stock. Furthermore, in connection with the dual class nature of our common stock, we have become subject to legal proceedings and could become involved in additional litigation, including securities class action claims and/or derivative litigation. Any such legal proceedings, regardless of outcome or merit, may divert management’s time and attention and may result in the incurrence of significant expense, including legal fees. For additional information regarding the pending legal proceedings, refer to “Item 1. Legal Proceedings.”

Current wording

Our Class B common stock has ten votes per share and our Class A common stock has one vote per share. Because of the ten-to-one voting ratio between our Class B and Class A common stock, the holders of our Class B common stock collectively have substantial control of the combined voting power of our common stock. Our amended and restated articles of incorporation provide that all Class B common stock will convert automatically into Class A common stock on December 22, 2035, unless converted prior to such date. As of September 30, 2025, stockholders who held shares of Class B common stock, including our executive officers, employees, and directors and their affiliates, together held approximately 49.5% of the voting power of our outstanding capital stock. This concentrated control limits or precludes your ability to influence corporate matters, as the holders of Class B common stock are able to influence or substantially control matters requiring approval by our stockholders, including the election of the directors, excluding the director we have designated as a Class A director, and the approval of mergers, acquisitions or other extraordinary transactions. Their interests may differ from yours and they may vote in a manner that is adverse to your interests. This ownership concentration may deter, delay or prevent a change of control of our company, deprive our stockholders of an opportunity to receive a premium for their common stock as part of a sale of our company and may ultimately affect the market price of our common stock. Furthermore, in connection with the dual class nature of our common stock, we have become subject to legal proceedings and could become involved in additional litigation, including securities class action claims and/or derivative litigation. Any such legal proceedings, regardless of outcome or merit, may divert management’s time and attention and may result in the incurrence of significant expense, including legal fees. For additional information regarding the pending legal proceedings, refer to “Item 1. Legal Proceedings.”

Previous wording

•require super-majority voting to amend certain provisions in our articles of incorporation and bylaws;

Current wording

•require super-majority voting to amend certain provisions in our amended and restated articles of incorporation and amended and restated bylaws;

Previous wording

•permit our board of directors to alter our bylaws without obtaining stockholder approval;

Current wording

•permit our board of directors to alter our amended and restated bylaws without obtaining stockholder approval;

Previous wording

Our articles of incorporation and bylaws designate certain state or federal courts as the exclusive forum for certain litigation that may be initiated by our stockholders, which could limit stockholders’ ability to obtain a favorable judicial forum for disputes with us.

Current wording

Our amended and restated articles of incorporation and amended and restated bylaws designate certain state or federal courts as the exclusive forum for certain litigation that may be initiated by our stockholders, which could limit stockholders’ ability to obtain a favorable judicial forum for disputes with us.

Previous wording

Our articles of incorporation provide that, unless we consent in writing to the selection of an alternative forum, the state courts located in the State of Nevada will be, to the fullest extent permitted by law, the sole and exclusive forum for any state law claim for:

Current wording

Our amended and restated articles of incorporation provide that, unless we consent in writing to the selection of an alternative forum, the state courts located in the State of Nevada will be, to the fullest extent permitted by law, the sole and exclusive forum for any state law claim for:

Previous wording

•any action asserting a claim arising pursuant to, or to interpret, apply, enforce or determine the validity of, any provision of the Nevada Revised Statutes, our articles of incorporation or our bylaws or certain voting trust agreements to which we are a party or a stated beneficiary (collectively, the “Nevada Forum Provision”).

Current wording

•any action asserting a claim arising pursuant to, or to interpret, apply, enforce or determine the validity of, any provision of the Nevada Revised Statutes, our amended and restated articles of incorporation or our amended and restated bylaws or certain voting trust agreements to which we are a party or a stated beneficiary (collectively, the “Nevada Forum Provision”).

Previous wording

The Nevada Forum Provision will not apply to any causes of action arising under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act. Further, our bylaws provide that, unless we consent in writing to the selection of an alternative forum, the federal district courts of the United States of America will be the sole and exclusive forum for resolving any complaint asserting a cause of action arising under the Securities Act (the “Federal Forum Provision”). In addition, our articles of incorporation and bylaws provide that any person or entity purchasing or otherwise acquiring any interest in shares of our capital stock is deemed to have notice of and consented to the Nevada Forum Provision and the Federal Forum Provision, respectively; provided, however, that stockholders cannot and will not be deemed to have waived our compliance with the U.S. federal securities laws and the rules and regulations thereunder.

Current wording

The Nevada Forum Provision will not apply to any causes of action arising under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act. Further, our amended and restated bylaws provide that, unless we consent in writing to the selection of an alternative forum, the federal district courts of the United States of America will be the sole and exclusive forum for resolving any complaint asserting a cause of action arising under the Securities Act (the “Federal Forum Provision”). In addition, our amended and restated articles of incorporation and amended and restated bylaws provide that any person or entity purchasing or otherwise acquiring any interest in shares of our capital stock is deemed to have notice of and consented to the Nevada Forum Provision and the Federal Forum Provision, respectively; provided, however, that stockholders cannot and will not be deemed to have waived our compliance with the U.S. federal securities laws and the rules and regulations thereunder.

Previous wording

The Nevada Forum Provision and the Federal Forum Provision in our articles of incorporation and bylaws may impose additional litigation costs on stockholders in pursuing any such claims. Additionally, these forum selection clauses may limit our stockholders’ ability to bring a claim in a judicial forum that they find favorable for disputes with us or our directors, officers, employees or agents (including, without limitation, any claims in respect of stockholder nominations of directors as permitted under our bylaws), which may discourage the filing of lawsuits against us and our directors, officers, employees and agents even though an action, if successful, might benefit our stockholders. In addition, there is uncertainty as to whether other courts will enforce our Federal Forum Provision. If the Federal Forum Provision is found to be unenforceable, we may incur additional costs associated with resolving such matters. The Federal Forum Provision may also impose additional litigation costs on stockholders who assert that the provision is not enforceable or invalid. The state courts of the State of Nevada and the federal district courts may also reach different judgments or results than would other courts, including courts where a stockholder considering an action may be located or would otherwise choose to bring the action, and such judgments may be more or less favorable to us than our stockholders.

Current wording

The Nevada Forum Provision and the Federal Forum Provision in our amended and restated articles of incorporation and amended and restated bylaws may impose additional litigation costs on stockholders in pursuing any such claims. Additionally, these forum selection clauses may limit our stockholders’ ability to bring a claim in a judicial forum that they find favorable for disputes with us or our directors, officers, employees or agents (including, without limitation, any claims in respect of stockholder nominations of directors as permitted under our amended and restated bylaws), which may discourage the filing of lawsuits against us and our directors, officers, employees and agents even though an action, if successful, might benefit our stockholders. In addition, there is uncertainty as to whether other courts will enforce our Federal Forum Provision. If the Federal Forum Provision is found to be unenforceable, we may incur additional costs associated with resolving such matters. The Federal Forum Provision may also impose additional litigation costs on stockholders who assert that the provision is not enforceable or invalid. The state courts of the State of Nevada and the federal district courts may also reach different judgments or results than would other courts, including courts where a stockholder considering an action may be located or would otherwise choose to bring the action, and such judgments may be more or less favorable to us than our stockholders.