Talk:Magnite Inc

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

California: Los Angeles Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Greater Los Angeles portal This article is supported by Los Angeles area task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Companies Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles

Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Companies To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies
Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles
Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention
Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes
Maintain : Portal:Companies
Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs
Other :
- Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template
- Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner
- Answer requests for comments

Internet Low‑importance

	Internet portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Marketing & Advertising Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Marketing & Advertising, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Marketing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Marketing & AdvertisingWikipedia:WikiProject Marketing & AdvertisingTemplate:WikiProject Marketing & AdvertisingMarketing & Advertising articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

The Guardian Lawsuit[edit]

From: https://digiday.com/media/cheat-sheet-guardian-rubicon-project-lawsuit/

The Guardian’s case:

In its court filing, the Guardian claimed Rubicon Project retained “substantial sums” in addition to the fixed-percentage fees. These “secret commissions” allegedly were obtained without the Guardian’s knowledge or consent.
The publisher claims it was kept in the dark by Rubicon Project, which provided “misleading and inaccurate” monthly reports regarding the total amount of money received from buyers of the Guardian’s inventory.
Rubicon Project allegedly didn’t inform buyers exactly how much of what they paid would be retained by Rubicon Project and not the Guardian.
The Guardian has also claimed that not having visibility of how much buyers were willing to pay for its media caused revenue damage.
The Guardian is asking to be reimbursed the money lost, plus interest and compensation costs, according to court filings.

“It is to be inferred that the concealment of the Defendant’s receipt of these secret commissions and their omission from the monthly earnings report must have been deliberate,” read the Guardian News & Media filing.

Rubicon Project’s defense: Rubicon Project filed a counterclaim in which it denies all liability. In its filing to the courts, the vendor claimed that although it did charge buyers an additional fee to its own service costs and didn’t pass that back to the Guardian, it was legally entitled to do so. Furthermore, Rubicon Project claimed:

The Guardian was fully aware it was doing this.
The publisher had consented for it to do this.

Complaint[edit]

False Information: "In May 2010, the company bought Site Scout, a malware detection company, although the company does itself place tracking cookies onto personal computers."

The part that I bolded is simply not true. My Internet security software regularly deletes tracking cookies from this company. It was happening so frequently that I decided to look into this company and found the article.

Malware[edit]

I have to keep blocking Rubicon for a couple weeks now because it keeps trying to steal some of my bandwidth. --112.207.201.175 (talk) 22:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this page mere commercial advertising for a company? To what extent should Wikipedia be able to be used in such a way? Doesn't this page merely give credence to a company serving "advertising" on webpages as spam as a result of tracking interests - ie spying on the public? Dollist (talk) 00:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]