The High Court has ruled that two digital marketing companies cannot recover about $2.5 million in unpaid invoices from Techads Media Ltd after breaching contract terms requiring advance approval of third-party traffic providers. The court also rejected Techads’ counterclaim for about $1.85 million, saying the evidence did not establish a reliable amount of loss caused by the breach.
Mr Justice Michael Twomey delivered the judgment in the Commercial Court on 28 July 2025. The plaintiffs, V Media DOO and First Click Marketing Operations Management Ltd, sought payment for web traffic they said they had directed to Techads’ clients, Ask Media Group and CBS Interactive, in April, May and June 2022. Techads counterclaimed for sums it said Ask and CBS had clawed back from it over unusual traffic.
The judgment records that the parties’ marketing agreements permitted traffic through six specified advertising networks. Other networks or publishers required Techads’ prior approval by email. The court found that V Media and First Click used ten intermediaries to source traffic, without obtaining that approval. It also found that V Media deliberately withheld the intermediaries’ identities, including when Techads sought information about traffic sources in July 2022.
The plaintiffs argued that Techads knew they used subcontractors and had approved the campaigns through a shared spreadsheet. The court rejected that position: the subcontractors were not identified in the spreadsheet, and approving an advertising campaign did not amount to approving the third parties supplying the traffic. The judge concluded Techads was contractually entitled to withhold payment for revenue generated through the unapproved marketing practice.
Techads sought indemnification for $1,852,719.65 in alleged clawbacks. The court found significant problems with the supporting material. The Ask and CBS spreadsheets were not admissible to prove the claimed losses, several different totals were advanced, and figures in Techads’ own calculations did not match the underlying material. Evidence also indicated that one AdUnit was shared with another agency, making it unclear how much of its clawback was attributable to the plaintiffs. The court further noted the claimed clawbacks related to invoice revenue Techads had never paid to the plaintiffs.
The court therefore made no order on the counterclaim. It concluded neither plaintiff was entitled to payment, but did not find that Techads had proved a particular financial loss caused by their breach. The case was provisionally listed for mention on 9 October 2025 to deal with final orders and costs; the parties could notify the registrar if that listing proved unnecessary.