The story. AppLovin has taken Unity to court in San Francisco, alleging that Unity’s Ad Quality SDK improperly collected information generated when AppLovin won and served ads. Unity denies it. Unity says the data comes from publishers’ apps or users’ devices with publisher permission, which puts the app publisher at the centre of the argument. (Digiday, Ad Tech Briefing: AppLovin and Unity’s dual explained, 6 October 2026)
01What happened
- The filing. It emerged on 29 September. AppLovin alleges the collected data came from auctions Unity did not win and, in some cases, auctions it may not have entered.
- What AppLovin says was collected. The record would include the creative served, the user who received it, the revenue tied to the impression and the later engagement.
- How AppLovin says it works. The filing says Ad Quality uses AppLovin-specific connector scripts, interacts with callbacks in AppLovin’s SDK and subscribes to an internal channel for impression and revenue events. It adds that Unity can configure the collection remotely, app by app.
- The model-training claim. AppLovin alleges “on information and belief” that the data helped train Unity’s ad models. Unity disputes it, and it has not been adjudicated.
- Unity’s answer. Unity says Ad Quality gets its information from apps or devices with publisher permission, “not from AppLovin”. It calls AppLovin’s own Ad Review product “far more intrusive”. AppLovin disputes that and says its product covers only MAX-mediated impressions and is not used to train its models.
- The offer. Unity said it could remotely stop Ad Quality collecting data on MAX-mediated auctions within five business days. AppLovin says the offer was conditional on resolving the dispute and would not reach data already collected.
- Wider reach. AppLovin’s filing says Ad Quality supports collection involving other networks, including Google, Liftoff, Digital Turbine and InMobi. Digiday labels that AppLovin’s characterization, not a finding.
02What it means inside a GAM network
This is a mobile case, but the question travels. A bidder legitimately sees what it needs to judge an impression and then learns whether it won. AppLovin argues that does not entitle a rival to assemble a record of what another bidder served, to whom, and what it earned. Unity argues the opposite about where its permission comes from.
Publisher permission is the hinge. Whatever the court decides, the party that installed the SDK and accepted its terms is the app publisher. We cannot tell from the filings what any individual publisher’s agreements say, and none of the allegations are proven.
For anyone running several mediation partners and verification tools in one app, the practical point is that each additional SDK is another party that can observe auctions you take part in. That is our reading, not a claim the filings make.
AppLovin and Unity are arguing about where one company's right to observe an auction ends.
03What publishers should do about it
04The bottom line
AppLovin and Unity are arguing about where one company’s right to observe an auction ends. Neither side’s account has been tested in court. The part that is already yours is the SDK list in your own app and the permissions you have granted against it.