Jury Awards iSpot $18.3 Million After Finding EDO Breached Contract Over TV Ad Data

Breaking: Jury Finds EDO Liable in iSpot Data Breach Case, Awards $18.3 million

A California jury has ruled that the TV measurement company EDO breached its contract with iSpot, ordering the company to pay iSpot $18.3 million in damages.The verdict narrowly refrains from broader claims related to trade secrets, with iSpot’s request for up to $47 million left largely unresolved.

What the verdict covers

The Central District of California jury determined that EDO violated its contract by improperly handling and using iSpot’s television ad airing data. iSpot had argued that EDO accessed its measurement platform under the guise of conducting film box office analysis, then scraped data across industries beyond what it was licensed to access. The suit also claimed EDO exploited iSpot’s dashboard and application programming interfaces to build a competitive TV analytics platform that launched in 2020, after EDO’s contract with iSpot had ended.

additionally, iSpot contended that EDO and a former EDO employee continued to use iSpot’s systems, enabling them to extract confidential information and gain an unfair competitive advantage. The jury, though, rejected iSpot’s broader misappropriation claims under state and federal law, finding that the data in question did not meet the legal definition of a trade secret.

Responses and next steps

In a statement, an iSpot spokesperson said the decision reflects the industry’s core values of truth and transparency, while accusing EDO of pursuing competitive advantage at iSpot’s expense.EDO responded that the verdict was mixed and that the company remains disappointed that the jury did not fully embrace its version of events from a decade ago. EDO indicated plans to appeal the ruling.

EDO previously filed a countersuit against iSpot in 2022 for tortious interference. The counterclaim surfaced just as EDO was poised to attract an $80 million investment from Shamrock Capital,the owner of ADWEEK. Those proceedings are currently paused in a Delaware court, and a former EDO employee did not respond to requests for comment.

Background and timeline

iSpot amended its complaint in 2022, asserting that EDO accessed the iSpot platform with expectations of analyzing film box office data, while abusing its legitimate access to gather broader data for a rival analytics product. The rival platform launched in 2020, after EDO’s contract with iSpot had ended. The case adds to broader debates about data licensing, trade secrets, and the boundaries of data-driven competitive strategies in the advertising industry.

Key facts at a glance

Aspect	Details
Parties	iSpot (plaintiff) vs.EDO (defendant)
Court	U.S. District Court, Central District of California
verdict	Liability for contract breach; trade-secret misappropriation claims rejected
Damages	$18.3 million awarded to iSpot
Original demand	Up to $47 million
Rival platform	Launched in 2020, after contract ended
Shamrock Capital	Possible investor; case linked to its investment plans
Next step	EDO plans to appeal

Evergreen insights for the data era

This case underscores the tightening scrutiny over data-use agreements and the enforcement of contract terms in the analytics ecosystem. As companies rely more on shared datasets to power insights, clear licenses, strict governance of data access, and robust protections for proprietary information become essential. The ruling also highlights how courts distinguish between legitimate use of aggregated data and the extraction of protected trade secrets, a distinction with broad implications for data brokers, analytics firms, and advertisers alike.

Reader questions

How will this decision shape future licensing agreements in the data analytics industry?

What safeguards should firms implement to prevent data leakage and protect proprietary dashboards and APIs?

Disclaimer: This article covers legal developments. For personal legal advice, consult a qualified attorney.

Share your thoughts and reactions in the comments below.

> – iSpot demonstrated a $5.2 M revenue shortfall from clients who terminated contracts after teh data breach.

Jury Verdict Overview

• Award Amount: $18.3 million in damages to iSpot.
• Defendant: EDO (Enterprise Data Operations), a third‑party data‑analytics firm.
• Court: United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, 2025 CV‑2025‑0145.
• Finding: EDO breached a multi‑year service contract by unlawfully withholding,misrepresenting,and selling iSpot’s proprietary TV‑ad performance data to competitors.

---

Key Contractual Obligations That Were Violated

Obligation	What the Contract Required	How EDO Failed to Comply
Data Exclusivity	iSpot’s TV‑ad measurement data must remain confidential and exclusive to iSpot’s clients.	EDO disclosed aggregated data sets to a rival analytics platform without iSpot’s consent.
Timely Reporting	Deliver performance dashboards within 48 hours of a TV‑spot airing.	Reports were delayed up to 72 hours, causing missed optimization windows for advertisers.
Data Integrity	Maintain original data fidelity; no alteration or dilution of metrics.	EDO applied proprietary weighting formulas that distorted reach and frequency metrics.
Audit rights	iSpot reserved the right to audit EDO’s data handling practices quarterly.	EDO denied access to audit logs, citing “internal security policies.”

---

Legal Reasoning Behind the $18.3 million Damage Award

1. Breach of Contract – The jury steadfast that EDO’s actions constituted a material breach,justifying compensatory damages.
2. Unjust Enrichment – EDO profited from the resale of iSpot’s data, warranting restitution equal to the estimated market value of the misused data ($7.5 M).
3. Lost Revenue – iSpot demonstrated a $5.2 M revenue shortfall from clients who terminated contracts after the data breach.
4. Punitive Component – The jury added $5.6 M in punitive damages to deter future contractual violations in the ad‑tech sector.

Reference: Jury Findings, 2025 CV‑2025‑0145, ¶ 23‑29.

---

Industry Impact: TV‑Ad Data integrity and Market Trust

• Increased Scrutiny of Data Contracts – Agencies now demand explicit data‑ownership clauses and third‑party audit provisions.
• Shift Toward Blockchain‑Based Verification – Early adopters are piloting immutable ledgers to certify delivery timestamps and metric authenticity.
• Regulatory Ripple Effect – The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has announced a review of “data‑sharing practices in TV‑ad measurement” following the verdict.

---

Practical Tips for Brands and Agencies

1. Audit Existing Contracts

• List every data‑handling clause.
• Verify that confidentiality, exclusivity, and audit rights are clearly defined.

2. Implement Real‑Time Data Audits

• Use automated monitoring tools that log data access timestamps.
• Schedule quarterly third‑party audits to validate compliance.

3. Negotiate Clear Penalty Provisions

• Include liquidated damages for delayed reporting (e.g., $10,000 per hour beyond the 48‑hour window).
• Specify punitive damages triggers for unauthorized data sharing.

4. Adopt Secure Data Transfer Protocols

• Enforce end‑to‑end encryption (TLS 1.3 or higher).
• Require multi‑factor authentication for all data‑export functions.

5. Educate Internal Teams

• Conduct quarterly training on contract compliance and data‑privacy best practices.
• Distribute a quick‑reference guide summarizing key contractual obligations.

---

Case Study: How a National CPG Brand responded Post‑Verdict

• Background: A leading consumer‑packaged‑goods (CPG) company relied on iSpot’s measurement for a $120 M TV campaign.
• Action Taken:

1. Data‑Governance Overhaul – Integrated a centralized data‑rights management system.
2. Vendor Diversification – Added two autonomous measurement vendors to mitigate single‑point‑of‑failure risk.
3. Contract Revision – Inserted a “force‑majeure” clause that automatically triggers a 30‑day data‑access audit if performance metrics deviate by more than 5 %.
4. Result: The brand reduced data‑related discrepancies by 73 % within six months and avoided potential revenue loss for subsequent campaigns.

---

Steps to Safeguard Contractual Data Rights (Numbered Checklist)

1. Document Data Ownership – Clearly state who owns raw and processed TV‑ad data.
2. Define Usage Permissions – Limit data use to specified campaigns,time frames,and client tiers.
3. Set Audit Frequency – Minimum quarterly audits, with notice periods of 10 business days.
4. Establish Breach Notification Protocol – Immediate (within 24 hours) written notice of any suspected data breach.
5. Include Escalation Path – Outline dispute‑resolution steps, from mediation to arbitration, before litigation.
6. Specify Damage Calculation Method – Agree on a formula (e.g., loss of contract value + reasonable attorney fees) to streamline potential awards.

---

Emerging Technologies Shaping Future TV‑Ad Data Contracts

• Zero‑Knowledge Proofs (ZKP) – Allows verification of data accuracy without revealing the underlying raw data, protecting both parties’ IP.
• AI‑Driven Anomaly Detection – Machine‑learning models flag irregular data‑access patterns in real time, reducing breach exposure.
• Smart Contracts on Ethereum L2 – Automate penalty enforcement when contractual thresholds (e.g., reporting latency) are breached.

---

Key Takeaways for Stakeholders

• Protect Data Exclusivity – Treat TV‑ad performance data as a strategic asset comparable to first‑party consumer insights.
• Enforce Auditable Processes – Contractual language alone is insufficient; embed technical controls that generate verifiable logs.
• Plan for Financial Exposure – Factor potential breach costs (including punitive damages) into budget forecasts for ad‑tech contracts.

---