By Marty Swant • December 13, 2024 •
Ivy Liu
There’s been a lot of speculation about Acxiom’s potential role in Omnicom’s acquisition of IPG, but an ongoing lawsuit could end up a wildcard, depending on its outcome.
In a case against IPG’s data warehouse Acxiom and performance marketing agency Kinesso, legal filings in recent weeks give a timely glimpse into allegations of the IPG companies allegedly misusing data to build their Real ID identity-resolution product. The lawsuit, filed in April by data firm Adstra, claims Kinesso and Acxiom breached a master data-supply agreement and used Adstra data to create a competing product. It also puts Acxiom’s offerings under a legal microscope, which could reveal strengths and weaknesses not spun by corporate statements or marketing materials.
The case has the potential to shape where Acxiom and Kinesso fit into IPG and Omnicom’s plans to bolster their combined adtech stack with new options for alternative IDs. Acxiom’s identity-resolution products are seen as a cornerstone of IPG’s data strategy that could help it compete with WPP and Publicis. However, a court ruling in favor of Adstra could bring potential financial, operational, and reputational risks.
The lawsuit also underscores potential challenges related to how companies leverage data assets and what ethical challenges or conflicts could emerge from the combined company. For example, Adstra’s complaint says its MDSA with Kinesso prohibited using Adstra data to develop competing products and sharing it with third parties — especially competitors like Acxiom.
Adstra and Acxiom didn’t respond to requests for comment for this story.
Updates in the case include witness detail about how Acxiom might have used Adstra data in developing Real ID. One testimony cited in court documents comes from Kyle Hollaway, Axciom’s svp and head of global identity, who said personally identifiable information (PII) from Adstra was just one of more than 30 sources used by Kinesso’s engineering team to build the Real ID reference graph. He also said Acxiom considered Adstra data for its Visitor Insights product within the Real ID suite, but decided not to after finding what the team thought was insufficient match rate efficacy. Hollaway also said Kinesso removed Adstra data from the Real ID reference graph after its evaluation agreement ended.
Adstra data also was used by Kinesso to develop the graph and a separate product (“crosswalks”), defense lawyers noted. They also said the companies stopped using the data in mid-April after learning of the litigation “as a means to put these matters to rest.”
The recent filings are part of an ongoing discovery dispute between the companies. Adstra has sought extensive discovery by requesting documents detailing revenues, contracts, and development information tied to the Real ID identity-resolution product. According to Adstra, the documents are key for calculating potential losses from alleged intellectual property violations — and determining any gains by the defendants.
“Desperation is not justification for additional discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, let alone for reconsideration of an adverse discovery ruling,” lawyers for Acxiom and Kinesso wrote in one filing. “But desperation is the apparent explanation for Adstra’s reconsideration application.”
One expert witness for Adstra testified about the importance of customer lists and other key data for such analyses. Another witness suggested Acxiom’s comparative analysis of Adstra’s datasets could have enabled the company to infer proprietary methods, potentially giving it a competitive edge in building its identity graph. However, they said it would be hard to evaluate the scope of alleged misuse without analyzing access logs and technical documentation to see which tools were used to extract, transform and load Adstra data, or how it was managed and reported
Although the judge denied Adstra’s request — calling it untimely and overly broad — the filings still shed some light on various issues. Documents mention Acxiom received less than $2 million in revenue under the three licensing agreements covering the identity graph developed with Adstra, which attorneys for Acxiom and Kinesso said was the only revenue from products or services relating to Adstra data.
The filings also have some observers asking about Real ID’s adoption. For example, one deposition excerpt included testimony from Eugene Becker, Acxiom’s evp and gm of global data & identity. When asked about the cloud-native version of Real ID that launched in fall 2023, Becker, he wasn’t aware of any generated revenue by the time he left in March 2024. Bryan Donovan, vp of data strategy & acquisition, was another witness excerpt included in the filings. When asked if Acxiom sells or licenses a Real ID referential graph, Donovan said he wasn’t sure about its customers or usage as of mid-September 2024 [when his deposition took place].
Some industry observers following the case also note the legal filings raise new questions about the value of Acxiom’s data depending on the outcome. If Acxiom is forced to expunge or purge the data taken from Adstra, one source said it could set Axciom three to five years back from where it needs to be. Others note Acxiom offers ways to help clients use their first-party data. However, they note it mostly relies on third-party licensing without having its own first-party data — unlike Epsilon. The filings also raise questions about Real ID’s adoption: If adoption’s low, would that change under the Omnicom banner?
In a filing supporting additional document discovery, Adstra’s lawyers argued Acxiom advertises over 500 Real ID customers on its website, asserting that presenting only three licensing agreements is insufficient to demonstrate the Real ID’s revenue. They also noted the defense’s expert witness wasn’t aware of Acxiom’s revenues or percentages for the products in question.
“[The expert] only learned during his deposition from a website screenshot presented to him that Acxiom claims over 500 Real Identity clients, admitted that he had not been aware of this fact, and had based his opinion on the three customers he was informed about but whose identities he did not learn,” Adstra lawyers wrote.
https://digiday.com/?p=563279
