I obtained court documents today of Direct Revenue's motion for a protective order filed on September 8. In short, Direct Revenue's attorneys are asking for an order prohibiting the plaintiff from serving any additional subpoenas on their customers. Plaintiff Stephen Sotelo has issued a number of subpoenas to Direct Revenue's customers including ValueClick (the company purchasing FastClick, Inc., one subpoena recipient). As a result, ValueClick management directed FastClick to stop doing business with Direct Revenue. Another company, ING Direct, has already stopped doing business with Direct Revenue. Attorneys for Direct Revenue claim the subpoenas are irrelevant to the case and are causing "severe damage" to Direct Revenue's business. Court documents can be seen in the links below, all PDF files.
Direct Revenue's attorneys claim that advertisers and ad networks no longer want to do business with Direct Revenue because of the subpoenas, but there are lots of other good reasons why an advertiser and ad network might not want to do business with Direct Revenue. As the litigation moves forward, and as more researchers post information about Direct Revenue's practices, outsiders are discovering that Direct Revenue is not the company they might have thought or pretended or hoped. Direct Revenue has been widely shown to install their software without consent, through porn videos, from child porn websites and though exploits. What advertiser or network would want to be involved with these practices? These are clear, important reasons why advertisers and networks might want to sever ties with Direct Revenue.