Adds to existing law to establish provisions regarding truth in digital advertising sales.
Summary
Senate Bill 1111 adds a new section to Idaho’s Consumer Protection Act to create “truth in digital advertising sales” requirements for publishers and purchasers of digital ads. The bill defines terms such as digital advertisement, geo-targeting, impressions, click-through rate, engagement rate, and verification, and it focuses on ensuring that advertising claims made by publishers can be checked after a campaign ends.
Under the bill, a purchaser may request verification within 30 days after a digital ad term expires for representations about geo-targeting, dates, and any agreed-upon key performance indicators included in the original contract. The publisher must respond within 30 days with verification from a nationally recognized third-party auditor, and the verification process may not require disclosure of personal information or proprietary intellectual property. The bill also requires publishers doing business in Idaho to maintain a method for making and receiving these verification requests for up to three months after the scheduled end of the ad campaign.
Impact
The bill would amend Title 48 of the Idaho Code by adding Section 48-603H to the Consumer Protection Act, creating a new statutory remedy for digital advertising purchasers. If a publisher fails to timely provide verification after a proper request, that conduct becomes a violation of the chapter and exposes the publisher to an action for actual damages or, at the purchaser’s election, a refund of fees paid for the digital advertisement. The measure is aimed at digital publishers, advertisers, agencies, and other entities involved in buying and selling online ad inventory, including ads on websites, mobile apps, connected TV, and social media.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests the bill drew meaningful but not overwhelming support in the Senate, passing third reading 19-16. That close vote indicates the proposal was supported by a majority but remained politically divided. No committee transcript is available here, so the record does not show detailed floor or committee arguments, but the narrow margin suggests the bill was viewed as significant and somewhat controversial rather than routine.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely the balance between advertiser transparency and the compliance burden on digital publishers. Supporters would favor the bill as a consumer-protection and contract-enforcement measure that helps purchasers confirm whether ads were actually delivered as promised, especially for geo-targeted campaigns and performance-based metrics. Opponents may object that the verification requirements could impose administrative costs, create litigation exposure, and force publishers to rely on third-party audits for metrics that may be difficult to verify without revealing proprietary systems or sensitive data. The bill’s limitation on disclosure of personal information and proprietary intellectual property appears designed to address those concerns, but the close vote suggests disagreement remained over whether the protections and remedies were appropriately calibrated.