Facebook Stops Working with Two Mobile Ad Partners for Violating Data Policy

Facebook wants to make sure everything is in perfect working order

By on February 13th, 2014 14:49 GMT

Facebook’s revenues come from advertising, but that’s not stopping the company from pointing the finger at those who break the rules.

The company has punished two ad analytics companies because they violated the network’s data policies.

More so, Facebook is advising advertisers to avoid working with HasOffers and Kontagent. The two companies used to keep track of how mobile ads performed and it looks like they were holding on to the data for longer than permitted.

The trove of data that such companies can retain includes downstream conversions, lifetime value and ad ROI, AdExchanger reports. While all this isn’t linked to particular individuals, but rather to anonymous user IDs, Facebook doesn’t want companies to be able to cross-reference data with a device identifier.

“After working with a third-party auditor to review the practices of all our mobile measurement partners, we discovered that some weren’t adhering to the terms they agreed to. As a result, we’ve removed a couple of our partners from the program. We take our contracts seriously, and will continue to act swiftly anytime we find out they are being violated.”

Facebook is steering advertisers away from the two companies, which could impact them quite harshly.

On a bright side, Facebook and its auditor didn’t manage to spot anything else amiss, such as data leaks or privacy breaches, which is always good news.

At the same time, the move indicates just how serious Facebook is about its advertising business, especially on mobile, where revenues continue to grow at an impressive rate.

In fact, in the last quarter of 2013, according to Facebook’s earnings report, the company’s mobile ad revenue surpassed desktop for the first time, reaching some $1.2 billion at a global level.

Facebook has 1.23 billion monthly users and 945 million of these also use mobile devices to log in.

1 Comment