Exhibit A
Three questions to Georgia's rights holder. Answered in 69 minutes.
The question
FromPesach Lattin, ADOTATToRyan Gribble, Georgia Bulldogs Sports Marketing (cc: Audra Richards)DateSept. 29, 2026, 5:08 p.m. ET"Georgia Bulldogs Team Pack" streaming ads sold to local advertisers
Ryan, Audra,
I'm the publisher of ADOTAT, an independent trade publication covering advertising technology. As UGA's multimedia rights holder, you're the people who would know whether this is authorized.
Paragraph withheld.
1. Has Georgia Bulldogs Sports Marketing, Learfield or JMI authorized Cox Media Group, Asellus Group or Addressable Media to sell placements marketed as inside Bulldogs games, or to use UGA marks?
2. Does GBSM control any in-game advertising inside the TV or streaming broadcasts of UGA football, or does that sit entirely with the networks?
3. Has GBSM heard from local advertisers or sellers about "Bulldogs" streaming packages it did not sell?
The deadline is Friday, October 2. Answers will be treated as on the record unless you say otherwise.
The answer
FromRyan Gribble, Georgia Bulldogs Sports MarketingToPesach Lattin, ADOTAT (cc: Audra Richards)DateSept. 29, 2026, 6:17 p.m. ETRe: "Georgia Bulldogs Team Pack" streaming ads sold to local advertisers
Thank you for sharing.
1. No
2. Sits entirely with the network.
3. No, but I would be interested in seeing the package you received.
Ryan
Why it matters. The company that holds Georgia's multimedia rights says it authorized no one, not Cox, not Asellus, not Addressable Media, and that the ad breaks inside the game belong to the network. A "Bulldogs" in-game package needs a yes from someone. The rights holder said no, and pointed to the network. That network, ESPN, has asked for our deadline and hasn't answered yet. The Cox proposal dates to 2024; ADOTAT doesn't know whether it was bought or whether any ad ran.
On the record. First published by ADOTAT on Oct. 7, 2026.
Exhibit B
Asellus's answer: NDAs, and a client watching TV.
Full reply, unedited
FromCarl Francese, President, Asellus GroupToPesach Lattin, ADOTATDateSept. 9, 2026, 10:12 a.m. ETADOTAT inquiry - inventory verification on team-specific live sports placements
Hello Pesach,
I hope you had a nice Labor Day Weekend.
Due to our non-disclosure agreements with our publishers, we are not authorized to discuss the specifics of our agreements. Furthermore, most of our capabilities are proprietary and sensitive. As you may know, the competitive nature of live sports streaming requires us to carefully protect our IP.
What we do share in the marketplace is that our ad-tech stack, and those of our clients, report all metrics at the most granular levels available. We always welcome, suggest and incorporate any and all fraud verification services requested by our advertisers — 90%+ of our campaigns include at least one, and often more than one, third-party verification service. We also incorporate third-party verification services directly, such as ComScore, which provide additional validation, authentication, and brand studies when requested.
As far as feedback from our advertisers, the best confirmation we regularly receive is when a client views their spot running live, within the ordered game, in the local market ordered, and for the specific team requested. That is perhaps the most meaningful, real-time validation of accurate delivery.
Unfortunately, there is not much more we are able to share.
Wishing you an enjoyable Jewish holiday season.
Carl
Why it matters. The questions were about who authorized the placements. The answer cites NDAs, then offers verification services that measure fraud and viewability, not publisher identity or rights-holder permission. Asellus's main proof of delivery is the client seeing its own spot. It also cites third-party verification, which doesn't establish rights-holder permission. ADOTAT then sent six narrower follow-up questions. None has been answered.
ADOTAT told Asellus the same day it was treating this reply as on the record; Asellus did not object. The dash in the original is Asellus's.
Exhibit C
The next day, Asellus asked a question of its own.
Full reply, unedited
FromCarl Francese, President, Asellus GroupToPesach Lattin, ADOTATDateSept. 10, 2026, 8:55 a.m. ETADOTAT inquiry - inventory verification on team-specific live sports placements
Thanks Pesach,
We have provided the information our agreements allow, all previously confirmed by our legal team.
We carefully protect our tech partner's capabilities, contractual obligations, and methodologies. We are confident you will accurately represent.
Are you working from a specific advertiser or a competitor suggestion?
Our team is looking forward to reviewing your piece.
Carl
Why it matters. Six questions went out on Sept. 9: whether any verification vendor attests to rights-holder authorization, which Comscore product, whether written authorization exists, how "last look" works, what proves guaranteed volume, and whether there were complaints. The reply answered none of them and asked who the source was. ADOTAT doesn't answer that question.
On the record.
Exhibit D
Oct. 21: Asellus declines to name any authorization.
Full reply, as Asellus asked
FromCarl Francese, President, Asellus Group (cc: a second Asellus executive)ToPesach Lattin, ADOTATDateOct. 21, 2026, 4:39 p.m. ETRe: ADOTAT investigation: Asellus sales to agency holding companies
Pesach,
Thank you for your emails. Asellus does not discuss its clients, resellers, partners, or the terms of its business arrangements, and we have no further comment.
If you report on Asellus, please include this response in full.
Carl Francese
President, Asellus Group Inc.
Why it matters. This was the reply to a direct question: can you name a single rights holder, network or platform that authorized Asellus to sell placements inside a specific team's live games? Confirming that an authorization exists doesn't require naming anyone. Asellus declined. The same email told Asellus that ADOTAT had asked federal and state law enforcement and consumer protection agencies for comment on this kind of conduct, and invited a reply from its counsel instead. Asellus's deadline runs through the end of Thursday, Oct. 22; anything it sends will be added here. Its reply is published in full, as requested.
On the record. Asellus asked that this response be published in full; it is.
Exhibit E
What Asellus tells buyers on its own website.
asellusgroup.com · read Oct. 21, 2026
"direct integration to 'last look' inventory with the top 30 CTV networks"
"We can provide you with the most sought out live streaming sports and events on CTV at the most aggressive price."
"Get access to the very best in live sports and other high-rated events on CTV."
Why it matters. Asellus cites NDAs for its partner agreements, but its marketing advertises "last look" access to the top 30 CTV networks. ADOTAT asked in September how that integration works and which SSP or deal structure carries it. No answer.
Public website, quoted as published.
Exhibit F
TAG: certification covers fraud, brand safety, malware and transparency, not inventory rights.
Answered inline under our questions. "Always on the record."
FromMike Zaneis, CEO, TAG (Trustworthy Accountability Group)ToPesach Lattin, ADOTATDateOct. 15, 2026Re: Does TAG certification cover inventory authorization?
1. Do TAG's certifications cover inventory provenance, meaning whether the seller is authorized by the rights holder to sell that specific inventory? Or are they limited to fraud, malware, piracy and brand safety?
We stay in our lanes, meaning certifying only for fraud, brand safety, malware and transparency. Other types of traditional financial fraud, such as fraudulent misrepresentation of the good or service provided are not covered by our work.
2. If an advertiser buys from a TAG-certified seller and the inventory turns out to be unauthorized, does TAG have any process for that?
See above. Outside of our scope.
3. Has this pattern in live sports come to TAG's attention, and who else should I talk to?
I've not heard of this type of misrepresentation, but I'd speak to the broadcasters who usually own the rights to distribute such content and see if they're having issue with such practices.
Why it matters. Sellers point to certifications. The certifier says certification doesn't cover whether the seller had the right to sell it. A TAG badge on a seller doesn't address whether a rights holder signed off. TAG wasn't told which sellers we meant.
On the record.
Exhibit G
An auditor on what makes a delivery report suspect.
His answers, with our questions added in gray
FromRuben Schreurs, Group CEO, EbiquityToPesach Lattin, ADOTATDateOct. 21, 2026Re: An auditor's view: verifying "guaranteed" in-game sports placements
Hello Pesach,
Thank you for reaching out.
That sounds very interesting, but not necessarily surprising. There are a lot of quality concerns in 'CTV', especially in the 'open market'. I've provided some input as per your questions:
1. In an audit, can you verify that a CTV impression ran inside a specific live game, or only that an ad served?
It depends. Sadly, there is no uniform level of access and transparency across the entire CTV landscape, meaning brands - or us as a result of that - do not always have access to specific log-level data that contains that level of detail.
2. What would make you flag a delivery report like this as suspect?
You have captured a good example of something that is an immediate red flag during audits, which is an impossible discrepancy or ratio in the delivery data. This is why we use proprietary benchmarks and quality verification rules to single out suspicious line items for a deeper review with the agency, buying platform and/or media owner. Other examples are 'too good to be true' performance metrics and other outliers, or obfuscated placement/media owner identities.
3. Would a standard media audit catch a buy like this, or would it fall outside scope?
As per point 1, it depends on the level of access and granularity of the data that is auditable. Your specific example would likely be flagged as suspicious, yes, and further examined as a result.
4. At what point does misreported delivery stop being sloppy and become something you'd call fraud?
We have a very low tolerance for misrepresentation of inventory or data quality. In essence, if there would have to have been a deliberate effort to obfuscate or misrepresent inventory/delivery, by anyone (media owner, network, platform, agency…) we consider it to be fraudulent, and will bring this to our clients accordingly.
Hope that helps, take care,
Ruben
Why it matters. Ebiquity's CEO says brands and auditors do not always have access to the log-level data that would show an ad ran inside a specific game, and that where there has been a deliberate effort to misrepresent inventory or delivery, Ebiquity considers it fraudulent. He was answering general questions about delivery reports like the ones ADOTAT has seen, not about Asellus or any named company.
On the record. Mr. Schreurs confirmed in writing that his replies are on the record.
Exhibit H
Separate matter: Cox Media Group's August 2026 FTC order over "Active Listening."
Federal Trade Commission · public record
In August 2026 the FTC finalized orders against Cox Media Group and two other firms over CMG's "Active Listening" marketing service. Under the order, which generally runs for 20 years, CMG must pay $880,000 and is
barred from misrepresenting the features of its advertising and marketing products and
the geographic targeting capabilities of its services.
Source:
FTC press release and
case file, CMG Media Corporation.
Why it matters. The order concerns CMG's voice-data marketing product, not sports inventory. The Bulldogs pitch predates it. ADOTAT is not saying CMG violated it. We have asked CMG whether it sold any in-game placements after the order took effect. Its answer is due Monday, Oct. 26, and will run here.
Public record.