The Digital Advertising Alliance filed an amicus brief in September 2025 with the Washington State Supreme Court defending a digital advertising company facing a $35 million fine for alleged violations of the state's Fair Campaign Practices Act. The case highlights mounting tensions between state campaign finance disclosure laws and the operational realities of programmatic advertising platforms, with the industry trade organization arguing that Washington's interpretation of its 50-year-old disclosure law has created a chilling effect on political speech.

The litigation centers on new rules from Washington's Public Disclosure Commission that extend disclosure requirements to digital media providers with what the DAA characterizes as onerous obligations failing to account for differences between digital and traditional media. The 50-year-old campaign finance law requires businesses selling political advertising to make information available to the public about buyers and their advertisements upon request.

That obligation proved relatively straightforward for legacy media providers operating simple business models. Local newspapers and television stations sold small numbers of print or broadcast ads directly to campaigns or their agencies. Digital media providers processing billions of ads across thousands of intermediaries and publishers face significantly more complex requirements under the same rules, the DAA argued in its filing.

The organization brought expertise from its Political Ads program, which allows for immediate voter disclosures and additional transparency information. According to the brief, Washington's disclosure rules have become so burdensome that many platforms and ad networks refuse to sell political ads in the state. "They are seeing not only complex and expensive technical challenges but also the huge costs of compliance. They accept political ads in nearly every state but avoid Washington. The result is not more transparency, but less speech."

The DAA's brief identified major platforms that have banned Washington political ads: Facebook, Instagram, Yahoo, Google, and X. Ad broker platforms including Trade Desk and Campaign Ad-Cloud also suspended Washington political advertising services. The scale of platform withdrawals from Washington's political advertising market mirrors broader regulatory challenges facing digital political advertising, where complex compliance requirements have driven major technology companies to exit entire markets rather than attempt conformance with prescriptive disclosure frameworks.

The brief raised concerns that disclosure obligations would force candidates to reveal strategic information about voter targeting. "This expanded disclosure causes real harm. First, it exposes campaign strategy to opponents. Second, it enables outside spending groups to infer campaign strategy and build off of it, despite strict rules against coordination," the filing stated. The brief cited Buckley v. Valeo, noting that the Supreme Court has "repeatedly found that compelled disclosure, in itself, can seriously infringe on privacy of association and belief guaranteed by the First Amendment."

The DAA's arguments clearly resonated with litigants and justices. When the digital advertising company and Washington State filed responses to amicus curiae briefs in early October, the company cited the DAA's brief nine times. The State's filing included five pages of responses directly addressing the DAA's arguments.

The Washington Supreme Court heard oral arguments later in October. Issues raised by the DAA's amicus brief shaped the debate and were frequently raised by counsel and judges. A legal representative of the digital advertising company opened with the DAA argument: "When the state imposed burdensome new requirements for disclosure on digital communications platforms in 2018, it caused a key political speech forum to be closed down in our state by the end of that year. … The biggest platforms -- Facebook, Instagram, Yahoo, Google, and X, formerly Twitter -- have banned Washington political ads in Washington in state and local races, as have ad broker platforms like Trade Desk and Campaign Ad-Cloud."

Justices focused on whether the fact that many platforms independently chose to ban Washington political ads constitutes evidence that the disclosure regime is unconstitutionally burdensome. The DAA's concerns about forced disclosure of campaign strategy through targeting data appeared to resonate. Justice Barbara Madsen pressed the State on the issue: "I guess I'm a little concerned about if you had required a candidate to disclose who they were targeting … It's a strategy that a campaign has [that] I'm going to spend this amount of money or the only money I have to target these voters. And I now have to disclose how I am using my resources, who I spent targeting because I have a limited campaign fund, or I think, maybe, I think that these people will be unlikely to vote otherwise, and so I will target them. How deeply are we going to want to delve for purposes of the state's interest into the strategies of a campaign?"

The State's counsel acknowledged that campaigns are not foreclosed from bringing a future First Amendment challenge to disclosure of strategic information. This implicit concession suggested that compelled disclosure of strategic information may be constitutionally problematic.

The Court's focus on platforms exiting the Washington market and on dangers of compelled disclosure of strategic information demonstrated the influence that the DAA's amicus brief had on deliberations in the case. Together, these issues formed the central tension in oral arguments.

The intersection of political advertising disclosure requirements and digital advertising's technical complexity has created recurring conflicts across multiple jurisdictions. Major platforms including Google and Meta withdrew from EU political advertising markets when the Transparency and Targeting of Political Advertising regulation took effect in October 2025. Those platforms cited operational challenges and legal uncertainties introduced by extensive obligations to their processes and systems.

Google announced in August 2025 that it would introduce severe restrictions on EU political advertising, allowing only official public communications from EU institutions and member states to run political advertisements. The announcement represented the most restrictive political advertising policy Google implemented for any region, effectively ending most political advertising across its platforms in the 27-member bloc.

The regulatory pattern demonstrates how prescriptive disclosure requirements can create operational impossibilities for platforms operating at scale. Google implemented mandatory enforcement of EU political advertising declarations starting September 3, 2025, through its Ads API and Google Ads Scripts. The technical changes required all new campaigns to declare whether they contained EU political advertisements before creation or modification.

For digital advertising companies, Washington's approach reflects fundamental misunderstanding of how programmatic advertising operates. Historically, legacy media providers maintained direct relationships with advertisers. They sold specific ad placements to specific campaigns. Record-keeping involved maintaining files of contracts and creative materials. Upon request, newspapers could produce documentation showing who bought advertisements and what those advertisements said.

Digital advertising platforms operate through automated systems processing bid requests, creative assets, and targeting parameters across vast networks of publishers and advertisers. A single impression might flow through multiple intermediaries between the advertiser and the publisher displaying the advertisement. Tracking every data point required by Washington's interpretation of disclosure obligations would require substantial infrastructure investments and ongoing operational costs.

The scale challenges extend beyond mere record-keeping. Political advertising represents a small fraction of digital advertising revenue. Major platforms determined that the compliance costs and legal risks associated with serving political ads in Washington outweigh potential revenue. This calculation occurs when regulatory requirements create disproportionate burdens relative to business value.

The DAA's Political Ads program offers a model for practical political advertising transparency. The program enables immediate voter disclosures and additional information to improve transparency without imposing unworkable technical requirements on platforms. The approach recognizes that effective disclosure serves voter interests while maintaining feasibility for advertising platforms.

Washington's Public Disclosure Commission extended requirements designed for traditional media to digital platforms without accounting for fundamental differences in business models and technical operations. The result created a compliance regime that platforms found unworkable. Rather than serving voters' interest in transparency, the approach reduced available channels for political communication.

The brief's influence on oral arguments suggests justices recognized these practical concerns. Questions about whether platform withdrawals constitute evidence of unconstitutional burden acknowledge that regulatory frameworks must account for real-world operational constraints. When major platforms uniformly determine that compliance costs exceed business value, that market response provides information about regulatory feasibility.

The strategic disclosure concerns raised by the DAA and echoed by Justice Madsen highlight another dimension of the problem. Campaign finance disclosure traditionally focused on funding sources and spending amounts. Voters deserve to know who pays for political advertising and how much campaigns spend. These disclosures serve legitimate public interests in transparency and corruption prevention.

Requiring disclosure of targeting strategies extends beyond traditional campaign finance concerns into campaign operations and tactics. A campaign's decision about which voter segments to target reflects strategic judgments about persuadable voters, resource allocation, and electoral pathways. Forcing campaigns to reveal these strategies to opponents and independent expenditure groups raises First Amendment concerns distinct from funding disclosure.

The interaction between campaign targeting disclosure and constitutional protections for political association creates additional complexity. The Supreme Court has recognized that compelled disclosure can infringe on associational privacy. When disclosure requirements force revelation of which voters campaigns attempt to reach, they potentially expose political associations between campaigns and voter groups.

Media Rating Council draft standards for digital advertising auction transparency released in September 2025 attempted to establish comprehensive transparency requirements for auctions across multiple channels. That effort emerged from collaboration among major industry stakeholders seeking to balance transparency with operational feasibility. The approach recognized that effective standards require industry input and practical implementation pathways.

The DAA indicated it will continue offering education for legal, regulatory, and legislative officials addressing issues impacting the advertising industry and audiences relying on ad-subsidized digital content. The organization's expertise in practical political advertising transparency makes it a valuable resource for policymakers navigating the intersection of disclosure requirements and digital advertising operations.

The Washington case remains pending before the state Supreme Court. The justices have not indicated when they will issue a decision. The outcome will determine whether Washington's approach to political advertising disclosure survives constitutional scrutiny and whether the digital advertising company faces the $35 million fine for alleged violations.

For the broader digital advertising industry, the case represents a test of whether states can extend traditional media disclosure requirements to digital platforms without accounting for operational differences. If Washington's approach survives, other states might adopt similar frameworks. If the Court finds the requirements unconstitutionally burdensome, states would need to develop alternative approaches that balance transparency interests with platform operational realities.

Political advertising transparency requirements have created recurring tensions as platforms implement disclosure mechanisms while managing operational complexity. Major platforms provide centralized repositories as advertising oversight intensifies. The challenge involves designing systems that serve voter information needs without creating prohibitive compliance burdens.

The DAA's amicus brief contribution to the Washington case demonstrates how industry expertise can inform judicial understanding of complex technical issues. Courts benefit from detailed explanations of how digital advertising systems operate when evaluating whether disclosure requirements impose unconstitutional burdens. The organization's Political Ads program experience gave it credibility in explaining practical alternatives to Washington's approach.

The brief's impact on oral arguments suggests that practical expertise matters in constitutional litigation involving digital advertising. Justices asked questions directly drawn from the DAA's arguments about platform market exits and strategic disclosure concerns. The State's counsel struggled to provide satisfactory responses to these points, suggesting vulnerability in Washington's defense of its disclosure regime.

The case outcome will influence how states approach political advertising disclosure in digital environments. States maintain legitimate interests in campaign finance transparency. Voters benefit from knowing who pays for political advertising and how campaigns spend resources. But disclosure frameworks must account for how digital advertising actually works to avoid creating compliance impossibilities that reduce rather than enhance transparency.

The DAA positioned itself as a resource for policymakers seeking to balance transparency and operational feasibility. The organization's Political Ads program demonstrates that practical disclosure systems can serve voter interests while maintaining platform participation. This model offers a pathway forward for states seeking effective political advertising transparency without driving platforms from their markets.

Washington's experience provides a cautionary example of how regulatory approaches that work for traditional media may fail when applied to digital platforms without modification. The state's Public Disclosure Commission extended 50-year-old requirements designed for newspapers and television stations to programmatic advertising platforms processing billions of transactions. The result drove major platforms from Washington's political advertising market.

Timeline

Summary

Who: The Digital Advertising Alliance, a trade organization operating a Political Ads transparency program, filed an amicus brief defending a digital advertising company facing a $35 million fine from Washington State. The case involves the Washington State Supreme Court, the Washington Public Disclosure Commission, major advertising platforms including Facebook, Instagram, Google, X, Trade Desk, and Campaign Ad-Cloud, and political campaigns operating in Washington State.

What: The DAA submitted an amicus brief arguing that Washington State's interpretation of its Fair Campaign Practices Act creates unconstitutionally burdensome disclosure requirements for digital advertising platforms. The brief contended that requirements forcing platforms to maintain detailed records about political advertising buyers and targeting strategies across billions of transactions have driven major platforms to ban Washington political ads entirely. The filing raised First Amendment concerns about compelled disclosure of campaign strategy and argued that Washington's approach reduces rather than enhances transparency by eliminating major channels for political communication.

When: The DAA filed the amicus brief in September 2025. The Washington State Supreme Court heard oral arguments later that month, with the digital advertising company and State filing responses to amicus briefs in early October. The underlying Washington Public Disclosure Commission rules extending disclosure requirements to digital platforms took effect in 2018. Major platforms suspended Washington political advertising services beginning in 2018 following the enhanced disclosure requirements.

Where: The case proceeded in Washington State Supreme Court. The disclosure requirements apply to political advertising in Washington State for state and local races. Major platforms including Google, Meta, X, Trade Desk, and Campaign Ad-Cloud suspended political advertising services specifically in Washington while continuing to serve political ads in nearly every other state. The pattern of platform withdrawals from markets with prescriptive disclosure requirements extends internationally, with similar exits occurring in the European Union when the TTPA regulation took effect in October 2025.

Why: The DAA filed the brief to provide expertise on practical political advertising transparency to the Supreme Court as it evaluates whether Washington's disclosure regime violates the First Amendment. The organization argued that Washington's interpretation of its 50-year-old campaign finance law fails to account for differences between traditional media and digital advertising operations. Disclosure obligations that proved straightforward for newspapers and television stations create prohibitive compliance costs for platforms processing billions of automated transactions across thousands of intermediaries. The brief sought to protect political advertisers' free speech rights, ensure voter access to relevant political advertising information, and prevent digital publishers from losing advertising revenue. The filing demonstrated how disclosure requirements designed for traditional media can reduce transparency when applied to digital platforms without accounting for operational differences.

Share this article
The link has been copied!