Magnite (MGNI) Risk Analysis

Our success depends, in part, on our ability to protect proprietary methods and technologies that we develop or otherwise acquire, so that we can prevent others from using our inventions and proprietary information. Establishing trade secret, copyright, trademark, domain name, and patent protection is difficult and expensive. We rely on trademark, copyright, trade secret laws, confidentiality procedures and contractual provisions to protect our proprietary methods and technologies. It may be possible for unauthorized third parties to copy or reverse engineer aspects of our technology or otherwise obtain and use information that we regard as proprietary, or to develop technologies similar or superior to our technology or design around our proprietary rights, despite the steps we have taken to protect our proprietary rights. From time to time, we may take legal action to enforce our intellectual property rights, protect our trade secrets, determine the validity and scope of the proprietary rights of others, or defend against claims of infringement. Such litigation could result in substantial costs and the diversion of limited resources, and might not be successful. If we are unable to protect our proprietary rights (including aspects of our technology solution) we may find ourselves at a competitive disadvantage.

The more informed advertising is about its audience, the more valuable it is. Programmatic advertising enables more precise audience targeting based on the interests and actions of the user. Targeted advertising is generally more effective and valuable for buyers than other types of advertising, resulting in more revenue for sellers. In order to target advertising, we and our clients must collect and use data in a variety of ways. Our ability to collect, use, and disclose data about advertising purchase and sale transactions and user behavior and interaction with content is critical to the value of our services, and any limitation on our data practices could impair our ability to deliver effective solutions to our clients. Any restriction on the types of data we collect could make placement of advertising through our solution less valuable, with commensurate reductions in revenue. Consumers can, with increasing ease, implement practices or technologies that limit our ability, or that of our sellers, buyers and business partners, to collect data. For example, users may delete or block the use of the cookies and similar technologies used to collect data, including through their browser or connected device settings. Consumers may also download "ad blocking" software that prevents certain cookies and other tracking technologies from being stored on a user's computer or mobile device or from making calls to advertising partners, which may prevent the delivery of targeted or other advertisements. In addition, device manufacturers, browsers and other tools are increasingly promoting features that allow users to disable the collection of data. For example, Apple requires user opt-in before permitting access to Apple's unique identifier, or IDFA. Further, it is likely that Google will eventually deprecate the mobile advertising identifier used on Android devices. These shifts have had, and will likely continue to have, a substantial impact on the mobile advertising ecosystem and could harm growth in this channel. Laws governing the processing of personal data also continue to impact our ability to collect data. For example, Directive 2002/58/EC (as amended by Directive 2009/136/EC), commonly referred to as the ePrivacy Directive, directs EU member states to ensure that accessing personal data on an Internet user's computer, such as through cookies and similar technologies, generally requires opt in consent and is allowed only if the user has been informed about such access and given his or her opt-in consent. Further, numerous comprehensive state privacy laws across the U.S. require businesses that engage in certain advertising uses of personal data to offer and honor an opt-out of such activities, including, in some states, through browser or device-based opt-out signals, such as the Global Privacy Control ("GPC"). Use of GPC and similar user privacy features provided on other channels of programmatic advertising, such as CTV, are growing. Technical or policy changes, including regulation or industry self-regulation, could also harm our growth in those channels. As further described in the risk factors below, current and potential future privacy laws and regulations in the U.S. and abroad already restrict, and could further restrict, the ability to collect and process certain types of user data. In addition, much of the data we collect and process belongs to our buyers or sellers, and we receive their permission to use it. Although our sellers and buyers generally permit us to aggregate and use data from advertising placements, subject to certain restrictions, sellers or buyers might decide to restrict our collection or use of their data. There could be various reasons for this, including perceptions by buyers that their data can be used by sellers to extract higher prices for impressions, or perceptions by sellers that their data can be used by buyers to bid tactically to reduce pricing for impressions. As consumers continue to increase their use of digital technology and to incorporate multiple devices into their lives, linking and using data across such devices is increasingly important. Various challenges affect our ability to link data relating to discrete devices or browsers, including different technologies, increased user awareness and sensitivity regarding use of data about their device usage, and evolving regulatory and self-regulatory standards. These challenges may slow growth, and if we are not able to cope with these challenges as effectively as other companies, we will be competitively disadvantaged. Any limitation on our ability to collect data about user behavior and interaction with content could make it more difficult for us to deliver effective solutions that meet the needs of sellers and buyers.

Even though third-party cookies remain supported, the programmatic ecosystem is increasingly shifting toward privacy-centric approaches that prioritize first-party data. We believe that this trend has the potential to shift the programmatic ecosystem from an identity model powered by buyers that are able to aggregate and target audiences through cookies and other tracking technologies to one enabled by sellers that have direct relationships with consumers and are therefore better positioned to obtain user data and consent for implementing first party identifiers. Google's shift away from eliminating third party cookies today may simply slow down this shift. While we believe that our platform and scale position us well to provide the infrastructure and tools needed for a publisher-centric identity model to succeed, there is no guarantee that our efforts will lead to an increase of the use of first-party publisher segments in the ecosystem. It is also possible that the increased use of first-party publisher segments will disproportionately benefit sellers or the large walled gardens that have access to large amounts of first party data. Additionally, these changes could create some variability in our revenue across certain buyers or sellers, depending on the timing of changes and developed solutions, and even if there is an increase in the proliferation of first-party publisher segments, we may still incur substantial re-engineering costs to optimize our solution for use with such segments.

We must operate our technology infrastructure without interruption to support the needs of sellers and buyers. Because our software is complex, undetected errors and failures may occur, especially when new versions or updates are made to our software or network infrastructure, changes are made to sellers' or buyers' software interfacing with our solution, or as we further integrate acquired technologies. Any unknown errors or bugs in our software, faulty algorithms, technical or infrastructure problems, or updates to our systems could lead to an inability to effect transactions or process data to place advertisements or price inventory effectively, cause the inadvertent disclosure of proprietary data, or cause advertisements to display improperly or be placed in proximity to inappropriate content. Such errors or failures could also result in negative publicity, disclosure of confidential information, damage to our reputation, loss of or delay in market acceptance of our solution, increased costs or loss of revenue, loss of competitive position, or claims by advertisers for losses sustained by them. We may make errors in the measurement of transactions conducted through our solution, causing discrepancies with the measurements of buyers and sellers, which can lead to a lack of confidence in us and require us to reduce our fees or provide refunds to buyers and sellers. Alleviating problems resulting from errors in our software could require significant expenditures of capital and other resources and could cause interruptions, delays, or the cessation of our business.

Industry participants in the advertising technology ecosystem have long anticipated the deprecation of third-party cookies and other identifiers, making it more difficult to rely on such technologies to identify users' devices. For several years, Google had announced plans to fully eliminate support for third-party cookies in the Chrome browser. However, as of the end of 2024, Google has decided to continue supporting third-party cookies for the foreseeable future, citing the need for additional time to refine alternative solutions. While this decision provides temporary continuity in the digital advertising ecosystem, it also perpetuates ongoing uncertainty for the long-term evolution of audience targeting and measurement practices. Despite the continuation of cookies, advertisers, publishers, and technology platforms are increasingly prioritizing privacy-focused solutions, and a number of industry participants have suggested alternative identity solutions. Efforts like Google's Privacy Sandbox, which aims to provide alternative tools for audience targeting without relying on third-party cookies, continue to be developed and tested. These tools, while intended to balance privacy and utility, may not fully replicate the capabilities of cookies and could disrupt established advertising workflows. Moreover, alternative identification solutions may require substantial development and commercial changes for us to support. There is also a risk that such tools will favor proprietary ad tech ecosystems, including Google's, potentially disadvantaging independent platforms like Magnite. Furthermore, market dynamics may still shift as buyers explore first-party data strategies, proprietary identifiers, and other solutions that reduce reliance on cookies. This trend could favor walled gardens and platforms with extensive access to first-party data, presenting competitive challenges for companies operating within the open internet. The growing adoption of these approaches may diminish the effectiveness of our platform in attracting buyers and advertisers, potentially leading to reduced revenue and market share. Even in the absence of third-party cookie deprecation, evolving regulatory and consumer expectations around privacy may require significant investment in re-engineering our platform and adapting to new data usage paradigms. If alternative solutions fail to deliver comparable performance or interoperability, or if they fundamentally shift the economics of digital advertising, our ability to compete effectively could be adversely impacted.

As digital advertising has continued to scale and evolve, the amount of advertising being bought and sold programmatically has increased dramatically. Although programmatic represents a substantial majority of CTV advertising, CTV sellers have generally been more cautious to adopt programmatic solutions compared to desktop and mobile video sellers, and in particular, with respect to biddable auctions. Many CTV sellers have backgrounds in cable or broadcast television and have limited experience with digital advertising, and in particular programmatic advertising. For these sellers, it is extremely important to protect the quality of the viewer experience to maintain brand goodwill and ensure that online advertising efforts do not create sales channel conflicts or otherwise detract from their direct sales force. In this regard, programmatic advertising presents a number of potential challenges, including the ability to ensure that ads are brand safe, comply with business rules around competitive separation, are not overly repetitive, are played at the appropriate volume and do not cause delays in load-time of content. In light of these challenges, programmatic CTV has largely been transacted through reserve auctions. Reserve auctions allow publishers to establish direct deals with a buyer, and may be "guaranteed," where a buyer has negotiated a pre-established price and volume with a seller. These transaction types allow the seller to maintain tighter control over their advertising allocation and are often used by sellers that maintain a direct sales force but still want to experience the benefits of automation. In general, advertising impressions monetized through reserve auctions carry a lower fee than impressions monetized through auctions with multiple bidders. Accordingly, an increase in the percentage of CTV inventory monetized through reserve auctions, at the expense of biddable auctions, could drive a decrease in our overall take rate which may negatively impact our growth. While we believe that CTV sellers will begin to expand their use of biddable inventory to attract a more diverse array of advertisers, there can be no assurance that CTV sellers will adopt such solutions or guarantees regarding the speed at which they may adopt such solutions. Any such failure or delay in adoption could negatively impact our finance results and growth prospects.

The growth of our business is dependent, in part, on the continued growth in CTV advertising spend. Growth in the CTV advertising market is dependent on a number of factors, including the pace of user adoption, the continued proliferation of digital content and CTV providers, the adoption of ad-supported models by CTV sellers in lieu of, or in addition to, subscription models, and an acceleration in the shift of ad dollars from traditional linear TV to CTV to keep pace with changing viewership habits. In addition, it is possible that CTV advertising spend growth may be disproportionately focused on CTV sellers that do not utilize our solution, which could impact our ability to grow our business in line with industry growth rates. If the market for ad-supported CTV develops more slowly than we expect or fails to develop our operating results and growth prospects could be harmed. In addition, to the extent that CTV advertising spend growth is concentrated among inventory that is not available to us or not available on favorable terms it could hurt our overall growth prospects.

Generally, our buyers and sellers are not obligated to provide us with any minimum volumes of business, may do business with our competitors as well as with us, may reduce or cancel their business with us or terminate our contracts without penalty, and may bypass us and transact directly with each other or through other intermediaries that compete with us. Accordingly, our business is highly vulnerable to changes in the macro environment, price competition, and development of new or more compelling offerings by our competitors, which could reduce business generally or motivate buyers or sellers to migrate to competitors' offerings. Sellers and buyers may seek to change the terms on which they do business with us, or allocate their advertising inventory or demand to our competitors who provide advertising demand and supply to them on more favorable terms or whose offerings are considered more beneficial. Supply of advertising inventory is also limited for some sellers, such as special sites or new technologies, and sellers may request higher prices, fixed price arrangements or guarantees that we cannot provide as effectively as our competitors, or that would reduce the profitability of that business. In addition, sellers sometimes place significant restrictions on the sale of their advertising inventory, such as strict security requirements, limitations on data sharing, prohibitions on advertisements from specific advertisers or specific industries, and restrictions on the use of specified creative content or format. Finally, with the proliferation of header bidding in desktop and mobile, sellers' inventory is available for purchase through multiple exchanges simultaneously. Buyers, in turn, are free to direct their spend to us or one or more of our competitors, and increasingly are seeking price concessions, rebates, or other consideration to direct more spend towards us. We serve many buyers and sellers, but certain large buyers and sellers have accounted for and will continue to account for a disproportionate share of business transacted through our solution. In 2024, there were two buyers of advertising inventory that indirectly contributed to approximately 39% of revenue through their buying activity from sellers on our platform. If a buyer or group of buyers representing a significant portion of the demand in our marketplace, or a seller or group of sellers representing a significant portion of the inventory in our marketplace decides to materially reduce use of our solutions, it could cause an immediate and significant decline in our revenue and profitability and harm to our business. In addition, loss of substantial inventory or demand could degrade our marketplace. Loss of major DSP sources of demand could adversely affect bid density or pricing in our auctions, and reduction in fees if we are not able to redirect inventory to other demand sources. Loss of important unique inventory could reduce fees from demand that cannot be shifted to other sellers and make it harder to differentiate ourselves from our competitors. The number of large media buyers and sellers in the market is finite, and it could be difficult for us to replace the losses from any buyers or sellers whose relationships with us diminish or terminate.

Attracting new buyers and sellers and increasing our business with existing buyers and sellers involves substantial time, expense, and personnel investments, and we may not be successful in our efforts. This is particularly true with respect to our managed service business, which relies on direct relationships with advertisers, and is therefore more resource intensive. Our managed service business also tends to be more susceptible to quarterly variability, as it is typically more sensitive to seasonality and advertising budget volatility. Certain of our product offerings require a significant amount of time and costs in the initial client setup and implementation, and we generally do not recognize revenue from such clients until we commence services. This process can be costly and time-consuming, and is complicated by us having to spend time integrating our solution with software of buyers and sellers. If we are not successful in targeting, supporting and streamlining our sales processes, our ability to grow our business may be adversely affected. In addition, because of competitive market conditions and negotiating leverage enjoyed by large buyers and sellers, we are sometimes forced to choose between loss of business or contracting on terms that allocate more risk to us than we would prefer to accept.

We are interposed between buyers and sellers, and to be successful, we must continue to find ways of providing value to both without being perceived as favoring one at the expense of the other. For example, our proprietary auction algorithms, which are designed to improve auction outcomes, influence the allocation and pricing of impressions and must do so in ways that add value to both buyers and sellers. Continued technological evolution in the availability and use of more data to inform buying and selling decisions necessitates that we, as an intermediary, use data in a manner that complies with the expectations of both our seller and buyer clients. Furthermore, because new business models continue to emerge, we must constantly adapt our relationship with buyers and sellers and how we market ourselves to each. Consistent with our goal of connecting buyers and sellers, we seek to grow our connections to each, and we must take care that our deeper connections with buyers, on the one hand, or sellers, on the other hand, do not come at the expense of the other's interests. In addition, as our own capabilities evolve, we may be perceived by clients, particularly buyers, as competing with them, which could result in a loss of their business or otherwise negatively impact our relationships. For instance, ClearLine, a self-service buying tool that provides agencies direct access to premium advertising on our platform helps agencies maximize the spend going towards working media, makes it easier for sellers and agencies to securely share data, improves workflow for campaigns traditionally transacted manually, and helps publishers generate more revenue and develop new sources of unique demand. If we fail to balance our clients' interests appropriately, our ability to provide a full suite of services and our growth prospects may be compromised.

Generally, we invoice and collect from buyers the full purchase price for impressions they have purchased, retain our fees, and remit the balance to sellers. However, in some cases, we may be required or choose to pay sellers for impressions delivered before we have collected, or even if we are unable to collect, from the buyer of those impressions. There can be no assurances that we will not experience bad debt in the future, and write-offs for bad debt could have a materially negative effect on our results of operations for the periods in which the write-offs occur. This is particularly true in the case of buyers that act as technological intermediaries, such as DSPs, since those DSPs control large amounts of spend across various advertisers and agencies. In addition to posing their own credit risk, such DSPs may not be required to pay us for specific inventory in the event the DSP is not able to collect payment from the underlying advertiser directing the campaign. In addition, we attempt to coordinate collections from our buyers so as to fund our payment obligations to our sellers. However, some buyers and sellers may require direct billing and collection arrangements between themselves, and some providers of header bidding wrappers or other downstream decisioning mechanisms in which we participate (such as Google OB) may control billing and collection for transactions we win through their platforms. In the past, some buyers have experienced financial pressures that have motivated them to slow the timing of their payments to us. If buyers slow their payments to us or our cash collections are significantly diminished as a result of these dynamics, our revenue and/or cash flow could be adversely affected and we may need to use working capital to fund our accounts payable pending collection from the buyers. This may result in additional costs and cause us to forgo or defer other more productive uses of that working capital.

We are subject to regulation with respect to political advertising activities, which are governed by various federal and state laws in the U.S., and national and provincial laws worldwide. Online political advertising laws are rapidly evolving and in certain jurisdictions we have compliance requirements with respect to political ads delivered on our platform. In some jurisdictions we may determine not to serve political advertisements due to uncertainty around these requirements and potential burdens of compliance. In addition, our sellers may impose restrictions on receiving political advertising. The lack of uniformity and increasing compliance requirements around political advertising may adversely impact the amount of political advertising spent through our platform, increase our operating and compliance costs, and subject us to potential liability from regulatory agencies.

In addition to compliance with government regulations, we voluntarily participate in trade associations and industry self-regulatory groups that promulgate best practices or codes of conduct addressing privacy and the provision of digital advertising. If we encounter difficulties abiding by these principles, we may be subject to negative publicity, as well as investigation and litigation by governmental authorities, self-regulatory bodies or other accountability groups, buyers, sellers, or other private parties. Any such action against us could be costly and time consuming, require us to change our business practices, divert management's attention and our resources, and be damaging to our reputation and our business.

Regulators, customers, investors, employees and other stakeholders are increasingly focusing on environmental, social and governance ("ESG") matters and related disclosures. These changing rules, regulations and stakeholder expectations have resulted in, and are likely to continue to result in, increased general and administrative expenses and increased management time and attention spent complying with or meeting such regulations and expectations. Emerging regulations in various jurisdictions, including mandatory disclosure requirements and carbon reporting obligations, as well as related uncertainty from modifications to or reversals of such regulations or inconsistency between regulatory requirements in different jurisdictions, may further increase the complexity and cost of compliance. We may also communicate certain initiatives and goals regarding environmental matters, diversity, responsible advertising, social investments and other ESG matters in our SEC filings or in other public disclosures. While we aim to achieve these goals, we could face scrutiny from certain stakeholders for the scope, ambition, or execution of such initiatives, and stakeholders and regulators have increasingly expressed or pursued opposing views, legislation, and investment expectations with respect to ESG initiatives, including the enactment or proposal of "anti-ESG" legislation or policies. Revisions to our goals, delays in achieving progress, or perceived shortcomings in our commitments could harm our reputation, erode stakeholder trust, and adversely impact our relationships with customers, investors, or employees. Furthermore, if our sustainability-related data, processes, and reporting are incomplete, inaccurate, or fail to meet regulatory standards, we could be subject to penalties, regulatory scrutiny, or legal actions. Misalignment between our ESG practices and stakeholder expectations could also impact our ability to attract and retain investors, secure partnerships, or compete effectively in the marketplace. Additionally, failure to address emerging ESG issues, such as supply chain sustainability or climate-related risks, could expose us to operational disruptions, increased costs, and reputational damage, adversely affecting our business, financial performance, and growth prospects.

Our success in the mobile channel depends upon the ability of our technology solution to provide advertising for most mobile-connected devices, as well as the major operating systems or Internet browsers that run on them and the thousands of applications that are downloaded onto them. The design of mobile devices and operating systems, applications, or Internet browsers is controlled by third parties. These parties frequently introduce new devices and applications, and from time to time they may introduce new operating systems or Internet browsers or modify existing ones in ways that may significantly affect our business, such as by providing ad-blocking capabilities or by limiting access to Internet user data. Network carriers may also affect the ability to access specified content on mobile devices. To the extent our solution is unable to work on these devices, operating systems, applications, or Internet browsers for any reason, our ability to generate revenue through mobile advertising is significantly impaired, and that impairment may be material. We expect mobile applications to be the largest driver of our mobile business. Many mobile apps utilize software development kits, or SDKs, and other proprietary technology of third parties, such as aggregators, and it is those third parties, not the application providers themselves, that contract with us to provide exchange services to help monetize the inventory. Due to this consolidation, if our relationships with these third parties decline or are terminated, it may result in a larger than usual loss of access to mobile inventory. Any rapid and/or significant decline in the availability of mobile inventory can adversely affect our mobile advertising spend and growth prospects.