IAB releases modernized contract terms for direct digital advertising, attempting to standardize relationships fragmented by streaming, programmatic automation, and privacy regulations since 2010.
The Interactive Advertising Bureau released this week a modernized legal framework designed to replace the contract patchwork that has governed direct digital advertising transactions since the organization's last major update in 2010. The Direct Buy Addendum version 1.0, alongside updated General Terms version 1.1 and Order-Specific Terms for insertion orders, represents the industry's first comprehensive effort to align contractual language with fundamental shifts in how advertising inventory is bought, sold, and measured across streaming television, programmatic platforms, and privacy-regulated environments.
According to the announcement, the public comment period extends through March 31, 2026, with feedback submitted to [email protected]. The framework entered public comment on February 12, 2026, addressing structural gaps that emerged as companies layered custom amendments and bespoke language onto outdated contractual foundations, creating what the organization characterizes as inconsistency, extended negotiations, and operational friction across the advertising ecosystem.
The Direct Buy Addendum establishes standardized terms for transactions where advertisers or agencies purchase inventory directly from publishers without intermediary platforms. This distinction matters because direct buying relationships operate under fundamentally different mechanics than the programmatic auctions that process billions of impressions daily through automated systems. The framework applies specifically to insertion orders, media orders, and similar documents executed between parties for direct inventory purchases, creating a legal baseline separate from the programmatic infrastructure that IAB Tech Lab addresses through technical specifications.
The framework divides contractual obligations across four interconnected documents that companies can adopt collectively or selectively. The General Terms version 1.1 provides a common legal baseline that applies across all digital advertising agreements but cannot function as a standalone contract. This document must be used in conjunction with an applicable addendum, forcing companies to explicitly identify which buying model governs each relationship rather than attempting to address all scenarios within a single comprehensive agreement.
The Direct Buy Addendum version 1.0 supplements the General Terms with provisions specific to direct inventory purchases, defining rights and obligations for transactions executed through insertion orders without programmatic intermediaries. Order-Specific Terms for insertion orders provides optional clauses addressing deal-specific matters including cancellation thresholds, sponsorships, custom content, and upfront commitments. Appendix 1 containing Definitions version 1.1 centralizes terminology to reduce interpretive inconsistencies across documents and agreements.
This modular structure contrasts with the industry's previous Standard Terms and Conditions for Interactive Advertising version 3.0, which attempted to address diverse buying models through a single comprehensive document. Companies have responded to that framework's limitations by developing extensive custom amendments and supplemental agreements, creating the operational friction that the new modular approach attempts to resolve. The architecture permits companies to adopt provisions selectively rather than accepting or rejecting the entire framework as a package.
IAB plans to develop additional addenda for programmatic platforms and measurement providers during 2026 and 2027, acknowledging that different buying models require specialized provisions beyond what direct buy relationships encompass. The organization indicated the General Terms may evolve as additional addenda emerge to maintain alignment across the framework, though the baseline document is designed not to change frequently.
The Direct Buy Addendum contains 24 numbered sections addressing operational matters that generate disputes and require clear contractual resolution. Section 3 governs orders and inventory availability, establishing that sellers must notify buyers within two business days if specified inventory is unavailable. Acceptance occurs at the earlier of written approval or the display of the first impression, unless parties agree otherwise. Any change to an accepted order requires a revised document clearly referencing the original and identifying modified sections, effective only upon countersignature within two business days unless parties agree otherwise.
Section 4 addresses seller owned-and-operated properties versus network properties, requiring sellers to provide placement lists identifying networks where impressions may be served prior to campaign launch and within five business days following buyer requests. If sellers fail to provide placement lists upon request, buyers reserve the right to withhold payment for impressions delivered on undisclosed network properties, require prompt removal of ads from properties inconsistent with brand suitability guidelines, and initiate discussions determining equitable remedies reflecting how parties would have handled such properties had they been disclosed in advance.
The supply-chain integrity provisions within Section 4 require sellers to represent and warrant that all inventory is accurately represented and that sellers possess legal rights to sell and fulfill such inventory. Sellers shall use commercially reasonable efforts to ensure third-party platforms, networks, or resellers are properly identified and reflected in ads.txt, app-ads.txt, sellers.json, Supply Chain Object, or equivalent transparency mechanisms. If buyers reasonably determine inventory was sourced from unauthorized sellers or misrepresented, such deliverables may be treated as non-billable unless parties agree otherwise, with buyers also able to require prompt removal or replacement of affected placements.
Section 7 establishes delivery schedule and pacing requirements, specifying that sellers shall deliver ads in accordance with orders including all placement restrictions, flighting windows, targeting parameters, and campaign-specific instructions. Sellers must use commercially reasonable efforts to deliver ads in a reasonably balanced manner over the flight period unless orders specify particular pacing models or schedules. The framework distinguishes between added value units - both guaranteed and non-guaranteed - and bonus ads resulting from overdelivery, clarifying that such units are not billable and do not count toward fulfillment of guaranteed deliverables unless parties expressly agree otherwise.
Section 9 addresses editorial adjacency guidelines, requiring buyers to provide proposed guidelines that sellers review and either accept or propose changes. No guidelines bind sellers unless and until parties mutually agree on final form. Sellers must use commercially reasonable efforts not to place ads adjacent to content both parties identified as restricted, though this requirement does not apply to user-generated content environments. For news and editorial content covering controversial topics, buyers agree not to enforce guidelines in a manner that would unreasonably restrict placement near newsworthy editorial content.
Section 10 governs invalid traffic detection and filtration, requiring sellers to use commercially reasonable efforts to detect, filter, and prevent invalid traffic including general invalid traffic and sophisticated invalid traffic in accordance with Media Rating Council guidelines and IAB Tech Lab standards. Sellers shall not employ or knowingly permit any practice, technology, or mechanism that artificially inflates impressions, clicks, conversions, or other performance metrics or otherwise compromises campaign data integrity.
Unless otherwise agreed in writing, invalid traffic shall be monitored weekly throughout each campaign's life, evaluated on an aggregate campaign basis under the applicable order, and measured using MRC-accredited or otherwise industry-recognized detection methods. Sellers must provide buyers with summaries of invalid traffic findings upon reasonable request. The framework establishes that impressions, clicks, or conversions attributable to invalid traffic are non-billable and must be excluded from invoicing or credited if previously invoiced.
For campaigns where invalid traffic exceeds industry-standard thresholds - defined as greater than 2% for general invalid traffic or 0.1% for sophisticated invalid traffic on an aggregate campaign basis - sellers shall work with buyers to determine appropriate remedies. These may include makegoods, credits, refunds, invoice adjustments, or other mutually agreed resolutions. The thresholds may be modified by mutual agreement in writing, acknowledging that certain inventory types or formats may have different baseline invalid traffic rates.
Section 11 addresses brand safety and suitability, establishing that sellers shall use commercially reasonable efforts to ensure ads do not appear adjacent to content that violates applicable laws or content categories both parties identified in brand safety guidelines. For seller owned-and-operated properties, sellers retain full editorial control while using commercially reasonable efforts to comply with mutually agreed brand safety parameters. For network properties, sellers must use commercially reasonable efforts to monitor and enforce compliance, promptly addressing violations upon buyer notification.
The framework permits buyers to use third-party ad verification companies to monitor brand safety, viewability, invalid traffic, and other metrics. Sellers shall permit reasonable access to enable such verification, provided verification companies execute confidentiality agreements and comply with seller policies. Buyers shall make commercially reasonable efforts to provide sellers with sufficient visibility into applicable verification settings including inclusion or exclusion lists, domains, URLs, keywords, categories, or other targeting parameters relevant to ad delivery.
Section 19 establishes controlling measurement standards, specifying that Media Rating Council standards serve as the default reference for interpretation and application of all measurement definitions including impressions, viewable ad impressions, clicks, and format-specific measurement criteria applicable to display, video, mobile, connected television, audio, or emerging environments, unless expressly modified in writing by parties. The framework acknowledges that the list of MRC-accredited measurement providers, the measurement capabilities for which each provider is accredited, and applicable device or environment types is available at mediaratingcouncil.org.
Parties must designate the controlling measurement in orders, which may be the seller's ad server, an approved third-party ad server, or another mutually-agreed measurement system as specified in orders. If orders do not identify controlling measurement, the ad server or measurement system that renders the ad serves as the controlling measurement for reconciliation and billing purposes, unless parties agree otherwise in writing. Unless otherwise stated in orders, reconciliation shall begin with measurement results provided by the controlling measurement reflected in orders.
If the difference between controlling measurement and another measurement source exceeds 10% over applicable invoice periods and the controlling measurement is lower, parties shall engage in good-faith reconciliation efforts to determine the cause of the discrepancy. The appropriate resolution may depend on the nature of deliverables, including whether placement is a standard measured unit or a sponsorship, fixed-fee, or custom execution. For standard measured deliverables such as cost-per-thousand impression deliverables, parties may mutually agree to use controlling measurement with reasonable adjustment, use alternate measurement sources as the basis for adjustment, or treat unresolved discrepancies as under-delivery to be addressed in accordance with the remedies section.
For sponsorships, fixed-fee executions, or homepage takeovers, parties may mutually agree to rely on seller reporting, a reasonable blended methodology, or any other approach reflecting the nature and intent of the sponsorship or custom execution. If controlling measurement vendors experience material outages, fail to report data, or produce incomplete or demonstrably inaccurate results, parties shall work in good faith to determine alternative controlling measurement, with acceptable alternatives including the non-controlling party's tracking system if verified and mutually agreed upon, independent third-party data if available, or mutually-agreed methodology for extrapolating performance based on available partial data.
Section 20 establishes reporting requirements, specifying that within three business days of campaign launch, sellers shall furnish screenshots to buyers for each applicable placement, excluding run of site inventory, run of network inventory, open real-time bidding or programmatically-fulfilled inventory, and any placements not explicitly defined or locatable by fixed position, property, or execution format. This requirement applies only to fixed placements, sponsorships, custom executions, or other clearly-identifiable placements as specified in orders.
The default rule establishes that sellers shall provide buyers with online dashboard access to reporting interfaces no later than five business days after campaign initiation. Dashboards must allow buyers to view and export the equivalent data otherwise provided in scheduled reports. If dashboards are not available, sellers must notify buyers and shall instead furnish weekly electronic or written reports delivered within five business days after the close of each reported period. Reports or dashboard data shall include daily-level data, ad creative, content area or ad placement as defined in orders, impressions, clicks, and spend, plus any additional metrics expressly required in orders.
Section 18 governs cancellation and termination, establishing that buyers may cancel entire orders or any portion thereof unless otherwise stated on orders. For guaranteed deliverables including cost-per-thousand impression deliverables and automated guaranteed deals, buyers may cancel without penalty by providing written notice to sellers at least 10 business days prior to the scheduled start of delivery, though orders may specify two business days, five business days, or other thresholds. Buyers remain liable only for the number of business days between the effective date of cancellation and the start of delivery for any guaranteed deliverables.
For non-guaranteed deliverables including cost-per-click deliverables, cost-per-lead deliverables, cost-per-action deliverables, and some non-guaranteed cost-per-thousand impression deliverables - including private marketplace deals and preferred deals - buyers may cancel without penalty by providing written notice at least five business days prior to the scheduled start of delivery, though orders may specify two business days, 10 business days, or other thresholds. For flat-fee based or fixed placement deliverables including homepage takeovers, roadblocks, skins, and newsletters, buyers may cancel without penalty by providing written notice at least 30 days prior to the scheduled start of delivery, though orders may specify 10 business days, 15 business days, non-cancellable status, or other thresholds.
For orders that contemplate the provision or creation of custom material, sellers will specify amounts due for such custom material as a separate line item. Buyers will remain liable to sellers for amounts due for any custom material provided to buyers or completed by sellers or third-party vendors prior to the effective date of termination. The framework addresses the operational reality that certain executions require production work beyond standard ad serving, creating sunk costs that require compensation regardless of whether campaigns ultimately launch.
Section 21 addresses invoicing requirements, establishing that delivery shall be calculated on a line-item-by-line-item basis for invoicing and reconciliation, except for placements packaged together in orders such as roadblocks or bundled placements. For any placements sold as a package, delivery shall be calculated on an aggregate package level regardless of the selected calculation method. Unless otherwise agreed in writing, multiple categories of units, impressions, or deliverables are deemed non-billable and shall not be included in invoicing.
Non-billable categories include ads targeted outside geographical locations specified in orders except for placements purchased at 100% share of voice including homepage takeovers, skins, roadblocks, sponsorships, or other fixed-presence execution. Site-served placements or hard-coded ads including logos, text links, or similar units that cannot be tracked through controlling measurement are non-billable. Third-party sourced data or vendor activity where such vendor has been mutually approved by parties and expressly designated as non-billable is excluded from invoicing. Ads generated by invalid activity including any unit identified as invalid traffic, general invalid traffic, sophisticated invalid traffic, or click fraud are non-billable.
Ads not in compliance with editorial adjacency guidelines, ads not delivered due to ad server malfunction, ads not delivered due to digital property malfunction, and rich media fees or any other technology fees are all deemed non-billable. If any of the above have been invoiced, they shall be credited or refunded, with parties cooperating in good faith to review findings and document any resulting adjustments in writing. The final number after application of adjustments constitutes the "net qualified deliverables" and serves as the basis for billing, unless otherwise defined in orders.
Where buyers use third-party ad servers, sellers shall not bonus more than 10% above the deliverables specified in orders without the prior written consent of buyers. Permanent or exclusive placements will run for the specified period of time regardless of over-delivery, unless orders establish deliverable caps for third-party ad server activity. Buyers shall not be charged by sellers for any additional deliverables above any level guaranteed or capped on orders. If third-party ad servers are being used and buyers notify sellers that guaranteed or capped levels stated in orders have been reached, sellers shall use commercially reasonable efforts to suspend delivery.
Section 22 establishes a two-tier remedy structure distinguishing operational and technical remedies from legal or equitable remedies. If either party identifies an operational, technical, delivery, placement, measurement, reporting, trafficking, standards-related, invalid traffic, non-human traffic, or other order-compliance issue, that party shall notify the other in writing. The receiving party shall use commercially reasonable efforts to correct the issue within 10 business days after receiving such notice.
If sellers materially under-deliver against any guaranteed deliverable, and such shortfall is not attributable to buyer's late, missing, damaged, incorrect, or unapproved customer-furnished materials, parties shall first use commercially reasonable efforts to agree upon the conditions of a makegood. Makegoods may include delivery within the same campaign or a later campaign for the same advertiser or brand, or any other mutually-agreed method to reasonably address the shortfall. All makegood terms must be documented in writing.
If the underlying issue is not corrected within the 10 business day period, parties may mutually agree to elect one or more of the following remedies: makegood, credit, refund, invoice adjustment, removal or suspension of ads, or cancellation. Where any such issue results in a material impact on campaign reporting or billing, parties shall cooperate in good faith to review the findings and determine appropriate adjustments, which may include any of the remedies listed above. Any such resolution shall be agreed upon in writing.
Legal and equitable remedies apply to any breach of the agreement, violation of applicable laws, misuse of data, infringement, confidentiality violations, or any other matter governed by the General Terms or applicable law. The operational and technical remedies noted above do not limit or replace any rights available under this section. For any legal or contractual violation, the non-breaching party may pursue any remedy permitted under the agreement or applicable laws, including termination, damages, indemnification, and any additional remedy provided under the agreement.
This distinction matters because it separates routine campaign execution issues from fundamental contractual violations. Under-delivery, measurement discrepancies, and placement errors fall into the operational category, addressed through makegoods, credits, or invoice adjustments. Data misuse, intellectual property infringement, and confidentiality breaches trigger legal remedies including termination and damages. The framework acknowledges that these categories require different resolution mechanisms and timelines.
Section 23 establishes comprehensive data usage requirements reflecting the privacy regulatory landscape that has emerged since 2010. Unless otherwise authorized by sellers, advertisers shall not use collected data for repurposing, though performance data may be used for repurposing so long as it is not joined with any order details or digital property data. Advertisers also shall not disclose order details of sellers or digital property data to any affiliate or third party. Unless otherwise agreed by sellers, agencies shall not use collected data unless advertisers are permitted to use such collected data, and shall not use collected data in ways that advertisers are not allowed to use such collected data.
Additionally, agencies shall not use or disclose any collected data, performance data, or digital property data obtained from sellers for repurposing in campaigns for any other client or advertiser. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the restrictions shall not prohibit agencies from using collected data on an aggregated basis for internal media planning purposes only, or from disclosing qualitative evaluations of aggregated collected data to its clients, potential clients, and media companies on behalf of such clients or potential clients for the purpose of media planning.
Unless otherwise authorized by buyers, sellers will not use or disclose order details of buyers, performance data, or a user's recorded view or click of an ad, each of the foregoing on a non-aggregated basis, for repurposing or any purpose other than performing under the order, compensating data providers in a way that precludes identification of buyers, or internal reporting or internal analysis. Sellers also will not use or disclose any user volunteered data in any manner other than in performing under the order.
Each party shall require any third party or affiliate used by such party in performance of the order on behalf of such party to be bound by confidentiality and non-use obligations at least as restrictive as those on such party, unless otherwise set forth in the order. Each party shall provide the other party with a written list of all third-party and subsequent-party tags including those employing piggybacking technologies that will be used to collect data, including a clear description of the data purpose for each party.
Sellers have the right to review and approve all such tags prior to placement, and sellers may reject any ad or tag at their sole discretion if it has not been approved or if the tag is deemed a risk to seller's network or user privacy. Buyers may also reject any seller-provided tag that risks the security or proprietary nature of buyer's data or violates the terms of the order. All user volunteered data is the property of advertisers, is subject to advertiser's posted privacy policy, and is considered confidential information of advertisers regardless of whether advertisers or sellers are the direct collecting entity.
Any first-party data shared between buyers and sellers for the purposes of performing under orders shall be used only for campaign targeting, measurement, and reporting under that specific order, and in strict adherence to all applicable laws and privacy regulations. Neither party shall repurpose the other party's first-party data for use in campaigns with any other advertiser or client or disclose it to any third party, unless explicitly authorized in orders. For the purposes of verifying compliance and transmitting user consent signals, parties should utilize IAB Tech Lab standards such as the Global Privacy Platform and platforms like the IAB Diligence Platform, where applicable.
Buyers and sellers shall post on their respective websites and adhere to their privacy policies, which shall comply with applicable laws. Failure by a party to continue to post a legally-compliant privacy policy, or non-adherence to such privacy policy, is grounds for immediate cancellation of the order by the other party. Order details shall constitute the confidential information of buyers, and digital property data shall constitute the confidential information of sellers. Each party shall comply with its confidentiality obligations as set forth in the General Terms.
The framework includes provisions specifically addressing connected television and streaming environments that have emerged as major advertising channels since the previous industry standard was established. Section 19's measurement standards acknowledge format-specific measurement criteria applicable to connected television alongside display, video, mobile, and audio. The framework recognizes that MRC-accredited measurement providers maintain different capabilities across device and environment types, requiring flexibility in how parties establish controlling measurement for streaming campaigns.
Section 20's reporting requirements acknowledge that certain placements, units, or formats may not be measurable through third-party measurement providers, including sponsorship components, publisher-served placements, text links, native executions, branded content, social extensions, newsletter placements, or custom units. For such placements, sellers may provide reporting from ad servers, content management systems, platforms, or other reasonable internal systems. Unless otherwise agreed in writing, such reporting will serve as the basis for evaluating performance.
The framework also addresses conversion API access, recognizing IAB Tech Lab's CAPI system and other server-to-server event transmission systems used in connection with orders. The party responsible for operating conversion APIs shall use commercially reasonable efforts to provide the other party with sufficient visibility into relevant configuration settings, event taxonomies, and data-flow parameters needed to validate delivery and performance. Such visibility shall be limited to non-proprietary and operationally-necessary information and shall be provided only to the extent permissible under internal policies, privacy requirements, and applicable law.
These provisions reflect the operational reality that connected television advertising operates under different technical constraints than traditional display advertising. Measurement capabilities vary across streaming platforms, requiring flexibility in how parties establish reporting requirements and reconciliation methodologies. The framework attempts to establish baseline expectations while acknowledging that streaming environments may require custom approaches documented in orders rather than standardized workflows applicable to all placements.
The framework's release occurs amid intensifying scrutiny of digital advertising practices from regulators and industry participants. Media Rating Council released draft standards in September 2025 outlining comprehensive transparency requirements for digital advertising auctions across multiple channels. The standards emerged from a collaborative project initiated by Omnicom, with backing from the American Association of Advertising Agencies and the Association of National Advertisers, addressing the absence of standards for ad auctioneer conduct regarding disclosure and reporting of auction rules or transparency into auction processes and outcomes.
IAB Tech Lab has maintained an active standards development program throughout 2025, announcing its 2025 product roadmap on January 29 planning to deliver 31 new specifications or updates. The organization completed 79 initiatives in 2024, developed with input from over 800 member companies. Recent developments include the Deals API specification released December 5, 2025, addressing manual entry and transparency gaps in curated programmatic deals, and comprehensive guidelines for six connected television ad formats released December 11, 2025, marking a significant step toward programmatic scalability in the streaming advertising ecosystem.
The Direct Buy Addendum's emphasis on supply-chain integrity and inventory representation aligns with broader industry efforts to address transparency concerns in programmatic advertising. Transaction ID standards controversies between demand-side platforms and supply-side platforms have highlighted deeper structural issues requiring regulatory attention. The Trade Desk launched OpenAds in October 2025 as a direct response to programmatic advertising infrastructure changes that eliminated buyers' ability to identify duplicate bid requests across supply-side platforms.
Industry analysis suggests agentic AI could fundamentally alter programmatic advertising infrastructure, with competing approaches emerging around whether artificial intelligence agents should facilitate direct relationships between advertisers and publishers or operate within existing programmatic systems. The Direct Buy Addendum's framework applies specifically to non-programmatic direct relationships, acknowledging that different buying models require specialized contractual approaches rather than attempting to address all scenarios within a single comprehensive agreement.
The framework's modular architecture permits IAB to develop additional addenda for programmatic platforms and measurement providers without requiring comprehensive revisions to the baseline General Terms. This approach reflects recognition that advertising technology continues evolving faster than contractual frameworks can accommodate through periodic comprehensive updates. By separating baseline legal provisions from buying-model-specific terms, the framework attempts to provide stability in foundational obligations while maintaining flexibility for specialized provisions addressing distinct operational realities across direct, programmatic, and measurement relationships.
The framework's ultimate impact depends on whether companies across the advertising ecosystem choose to adopt the standardized terms rather than continuing to rely on custom agreements developed over years of relationship-specific negotiations. IAB has made adoption voluntary, permitting companies to implement the framework collectively as written, incorporate selected terms into existing contracts, or continue using existing agreements without modification. This flexibility acknowledges that companies have invested substantial resources developing custom contractual language addressing specific operational needs and relationship dynamics.
Companies may face challenges determining whether the standardized framework adequately addresses specialized requirements that emerged through years of custom negotiations. Large publishers and advertisers have developed comprehensive master service agreements incorporating extensive amendments and supplemental provisions addressing specific operational scenarios, technology integrations, and business model variations. The decision to replace such agreements with IAB's standardized framework requires assessing whether the baseline terms plus order-specific provisions adequately protect interests that custom language currently addresses.
The framework also introduces questions about how parties manage transitions from existing agreements to new standardized terms. Companies with active campaigns operating under current agreements must determine whether to continue those relationships under existing terms through campaign completion or attempt to migrate mid-flight to new contractual frameworks. The operational complexity of managing multiple contractual frameworks simultaneously across different advertiser, publisher, and campaign relationships may discourage widespread adoption despite the framework's intended benefits.
Marketing professionals evaluating the framework should focus on how the standardized provisions address operational pain points encountered in current direct buy relationships. The measurement and reconciliation provisions attempt to establish clear processes for handling discrepancies between tracking systems, a common source of disputes that generates lengthy email exchanges and delayed payments. The cancellation and termination provisions provide default thresholds that parties can modify through order-specific terms, creating baseline expectations while preserving flexibility for relationship-specific requirements.
The data usage provisions reflect privacy regulations enacted since 2010, establishing restrictions on repurposing collected data and requirements for tag disclosure and approval. Companies operating under current agreements should assess whether existing data usage provisions adequately address regulatory requirements or whether adopting IAB's standardized language would reduce compliance risk. The framework's emphasis on utilizing IAB Tech Lab standards for consent signals aligns with broader industry efforts to establish technical infrastructure supporting privacy compliance.
Who: The Interactive Advertising Bureau released the Direct Buy Addendum version 1.0, General Terms version 1.1, Order-Specific Terms for insertion orders version 1.0, and Appendix 1 - Definitions version 1.1. The framework affects advertisers, brands, media agencies, publishers, media owners, and ad operations, legal, and finance teams involved in direct digital advertising transactions.
What: A modernized legal framework designed to standardize direct digital advertising contracts through modular documents addressing specific buying models. The Direct Buy Addendum establishes terms for direct inventory purchases without programmatic intermediaries, supplementing the General Terms that provide a common legal baseline across all digital advertising agreements. Order-Specific Terms address deal-specific matters including cancellation, sponsorships, custom content, and upfront commitments. Appendix 1 centralizes definitions to reduce interpretive inconsistencies.
When: The framework entered public comment on February 12, 2026, with feedback accepted through March 31, 2026. The release represents the first comprehensive update to industry contract standards since 2010, when IAB published Standard Terms and Conditions for Interactive Advertising Version 3.0. IAB plans to develop additional addenda for programmatic platforms and measurement providers during 2026 and 2027.
Where: The framework applies to direct digital advertising transactions globally where parties choose to adopt the standardized terms. Companies can implement the framework collectively as written, incorporate selected terms into existing contracts, or continue using existing agreements. The framework operates alongside technical standards developed by IAB Tech Lab addressing programmatic advertising infrastructure, measurement protocols, and connected television specifications.
Why: The digital advertising ecosystem has changed fundamentally since 2010 through streaming and connected television growth, programmatic automation, artificial intelligence-driven optimization, first-party data strategies, and privacy regulations. Companies have responded by layering custom amendments and bespoke language onto outdated contractual foundations, creating inconsistency, extended negotiations, and operational friction. The framework attempts to replace fragmentation with a clear, modular legal foundation that can evolve alongside the industry while preserving flexibility across buying models, formats, and technologies. The standardized provisions address operational pain points including measurement reconciliation, cancellation thresholds, data usage restrictions, and invalid traffic detection that generate disputes under current custom agreements.
