Mobile ad giants AppLovin and Unity locked in legal dispute over data collection

In an application for a temporary restraining order, AppLovin alleges Unity’s Ad Quality SDK has improperly collected data relating to advertisements served by AppLovin, including information about creatives, users and devices, impression revenue and engagement.

AppLovin further alleges, “on information and belief,” that Unity has fed its data into models used to compete against AppLovin in mobile advertising auctions. The company claims Unity has used AppLovin’s “own output to train those models and to model AppLovin’s ad decisions.” Those claims are AppLovin’s allegations and have not been adjudicated. 

The company is asking the court to prohibit Unity from “collecting, intercepting, extracting, using, or disclosing” what AppLovin defines as its “Protected Data.” This encompasses data from ads AppLovin wins and serves, as well as certain information derived from operating its auctions, including clearing prices, auction and impression identifiers, and its mediation waterfall.

AppLovin also wants Unity ordered to disable the relevant collection within five business days and modify its Ad Quality SDK within 30 days. The requested relief would not prevent Unity from collecting data from ads Unity itself wins and serves.

The court action accompanies a JAMS arbitration initiated by AppLovin. Its claims include breach of contract, trade-secret misappropriation, interference with contractual and prospective economic relationships, and violations of California’s unfair competition law. AppLovin argues that court intervention is necessary while the arbitration proceeds because the alleged collection is continuing and could cause damage that cannot subsequently be remedied through an arbitration award alone. 

Unity has disputed AppLovin’s position. According to AppLovin’s account of pre-litigation correspondence included in the filing, Unity has argued that AppLovin operates a comparable product, Ad Review, formerly known as SafeDK, which Unity characterized as “far more intrusive” than its own Ad Quality product. 

AppLovin rejects that comparison. It says Ad Review operates only on impressions mediated through MAX and is used to identify and moderate potentially problematic advertising, rather than build profiles or train AppLovin’s models. That characterization is AppLovin’s position in the dispute. 

The papers also indicate the two companies tried to resolve the dispute before filing in court. AppLovin says it sent a cease-and-desist demand in August, while Unity subsequently proposed steps to “wind down Ad Quality’s operation with respect to ads from MAX-mediated auctions.” 

According to the filing, Unity later said it could remotely turn off Ad Quality’s collection relating to MAX-mediated auctions within five business days. AppLovin rejected the proposed resolution, arguing it was contingent on AppLovin treating the dispute as resolved and did not address previously collected data, models allegedly trained using that information, or collection involving other mediation platforms, including Unity’s LevelPlay and Google’s AdMob. 

Unity intends to appear and oppose AppLovin’s application, according to the court papers. At the time of writing, a hearing was scheduled for Sept. 29 at 11 a.m. PT.