Live Update: Timeline and Key Documents from the EDO vs. iSpot Trial

Live Update: Timeline and Key Documents from the EDO vs. iSpot Trial — a reporter’s dossier

Hook: If you cover adtech disputes, you know the biggest pain point: fast-moving courtroom events + dense technical evidence = hours of decoding before you can publish a defensible story. This live, tightly sourced timeline and evidence dossier of the EDO v. iSpot trial cuts through the noise — showing what mattered, why the jury awarded $18.3M, and exactly which documents reporters and creators should pull to verify claims and recreate the damages math.

Topline (most important first)

In January 2026, a federal jury in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California found EDO liable for breaching its contract with iSpot, awarding iSpot approximately $18.3 million in damages. iSpot had sought as much as $47 million in losses and statutory relief. The case centered on EDO’s access to and use of iSpot’s TV ad airings data, which iSpot says was licensed only for specific film box-office analysis but was used by EDO for broader commercial purposes.

Quick facts

• Court: U.S. District Court, Central District of California
• Plaintiff: iSpot.tv (iSpot)
• Defendant: EDO (TV measurement firm co‑founded by Ed Norton)
• Claim type: Breach of contract, misuse of licensed data
• Verdict: Jury found liability; damages awarded $18.3M (January 2026)
• Plaintiff’s demand: Up to $47M (per filings)

Why this matters now (2026 context)

Adtech litigation over measurement and data access exploded during 2024–2025 as the industry shifted to connected TV (CTV) measurement, privacy-first identity solutions, and server-side processing. Courts and juries are increasingly scrutinizing how vendors repurpose or resell licensed telemetry and airings data. For creators and reporters this means:

• More high‑stakes civil cases tied to measurement transparency and licensing.
• Damages are not purely theoretical — juries are awarding multi‑million dollar remedies when contracts and forensic logs show misuse.
• Technical exhibits (server logs, API traces, dashboards) frequently decide outcomes; obtaining and interpreting these documents is essential to accurate reporting.

Live timeline — critical trial moments (compact, source-led)

The sequence below synthesizes filings, press statements, and courtroom reporting. For each entry, I list the document types journalists should pull and the reporting angle that piece of evidence supports.

2022 — Amended complaint filed (foundation)

What happened: iSpot filed an amended complaint alleging that EDO accessed iSpot’s TV advertising measurement platform under a license for film box-office analysis but then scraped proprietary data for broader, unlicensed commercial use.

Documents to pull: amended complaint, exhibit index, initial expert disclosures.

Why it matters: The amended complaint frames the legal theory — contract breach and misuse — and lists the baseline documents and witnesses the plaintiff will rely on.

2023–2025 — Discovery: server logs, API keys, and license agreements

What happened: The case turned technical during discovery. iSpot produced dashboard screenshots, access logs, and license terms; EDO produced invoices, internal memos, and analysis reports. Depositions focused on who had access, the scope of the license, and EDO’s use cases.

Documents to pull: access logs, API call records, license agreements, deposition transcripts (notably of C-suite and engineers), expert reports on valuation.

Why it matters: These are the core source documents that tie claimed misuses to financial harm. Logs and API traces are often the smoking gun in measurement disputes.

Pretrial motions (late 2025): Daubert and motions in limine

What happened: Each side moved to exclude or limit opposing experts and exhibits. Rulings on those motions defined which methodologies jurors could consider when assessing damages.

Documents to pull: Daubert motions, magistrate/judge opinions, motions in limine, and the judge’s rulings. These determine admissible damages models.

Why it matters: If a damages model was excluded, the jury’s award will reflect what experts were allowed to present.

Trial: Key evidentiary moments (January 2026)

What happened: The trial included live demonstrations of the iSpot dashboard, forensics experts reconstructing how data was scraped, and cross-examination of EDO employees about what they used the data for. ISpot’s counsel emphasized alternative licensing rates and the number of unlicensed uses; EDO contested causation and market impact.

Documents to pull: trial exhibits, demonstrative slide decks, expert testimony transcripts, and jury instructions.

Why it matters: Demonstratives and live testimony are what jurors see; they shape damage calculations and credibility findings.

Verdict: Jury awards $18.3M (January 2026)

What happened: The jury returned verdict finding EDO breached the contract and awarded $18.3M in damages. ISpot issued a statement emphasizing trust and transparency; EDO acknowledged the decision and may appeal (appeal window and motions post-trial follow).

Documents to pull: verdict form, verdict transcript, judgment order, post-trial motions (e.g., motions for judgment as a matter of law or to alter/amen d the judgment), and any settlement communications if later filed.

Why it matters: The verdict form shows the legal theory the jury accepted and breaks down awarded categories (if itemized). Post‑trial filings can alter or expand what is payable.

Evidence dossier: key documents every reporter should obtain

Below is a prioritized list with exactly what to look for and how each item supports reporting on liability and damages.

1. Amended complaint and exhibits — the roadmap of claims and the plaintiff’s initial documentary evidence.
2. Answer and counterclaims — defenses, alternative theories, and admissions.
3. Discovery production index — maps which documents exist and where to request them.
4. Server access logs / API call logs / timestamped dashboard screenshots — technical proof of access, frequency, and scope of data retrieval.
5. License agreements and terms of service — the contract language that defines permitted uses (critical to breach claims).
6. Invoices and invoices templates — licensing fees and market rates used by experts to compute lost revenues.
7. Expert reports & rebuttals — the damages models and the methodology judges/juries assess under Daubert standards.
8. Deposition transcripts — admissions from C-suite, engineers, and product leads that can support intent, knowledge, or mitigation.
9. Trial exhibits and demonstratives — versions of slides/judicial aids shown to jurors that distill complex tech into narratives.
10. Verdict form and judgment — how the award was recorded and whether damages were broken down into categories.
11. Post-trial motions and orders — motions to alter judgment, attorney fee petitions, and any bond/appeal paperwork.

How the jury likely calculated the $18.3M award (step-by-step, reporter-friendly)

Courts do not hand jurors formulas; juries weigh admitted evidence and expert testimony. In contract misuse cases common to adtech, damages typically rely on one or more of these approaches:

• Expectation (lost profits or license fees): What iSpot would have earned had EDO obtained the proper license for the uses at issue. Experts use market rates, license terms, and counts of unlicensed uses to estimate this.
• Restitution / unjust enrichment: Amount EDO unjustly gained by using the data without paying. This can be disgorgement based on revenue traceable to the misuse.
• Reliance damages: Costs iSpot incurred because of the breach (rare in large adtech suits unless direct costs are clear).
• Mitigation adjustments: Deductions if iSpot failed to mitigate losses or if EDO shows limited causation.

Illustrative (not official) math to explain standard logic:

1. Expert calculates per-unit license price (e.g., $X per month of dashboard access or per-airing fee).
2. Expert multiplies that unit price by the number of unlicensed uses identified in server logs (e.g., Y accesses / airings).
3. Adjust for market factors and attribution (e.g., subtract percentage of value not attributable to iSpot’s data).
4. Sum across categories (lost licensing + unjust enrichment) to arrive at a damages range.

In the EDO v. iSpot case, iSpot sought up to $47M; the jury awarded $18.3M — a sign they accepted some of the plaintiff’s methodology but also applied downward adjustments for causation, overlap, mitigation, or evidentiary limits admitted during pretrial rulings.

Critical courtroom evidence that moves juries in adtech disputes (and how to report it)

• Timestamped logs and API calls — Report what the logs show: frequency, IP addresses, and API endpoints hit. Secure corroborating testimony from a forensics expert to interpret logs.
• Versioned dashboard screenshots / Wayback captures — Use archival captures to verify what data presentation looked like at specific dates. Screenshot metadata helps establish timelines.
• Expert economic models — Get plain-English summaries and ask experts to walk through conservative and aggressive assumptions.
• Internal comms (emails/slack) — These show intent and contemporaneous knowledge; redact sensitive PII but quote key lines with sourcing.
• License language — Quote precise clauses alleged to be breached (term, purpose clause, and restrictions). Legal readers need verbatim language to evaluate the strength of the claim.

Practical reporter toolkit: step-by-step to verify and publish fast

Use this checklist to build your own timeline and evidence dossier quickly and defensibly.

1. Pull the docket (PACER, CourtListener, RECAP). Download complaint, amended complaint, answers, and exhibit lists.
2. Locate and download expert reports and Daubert rulings — these define admissible methods for damages.
3. Request trial exhibits and verdict forms once filed on the docket; if not yet available, subpoena the clerk’s office for a transcript or contact counsel for redacted copies.
4. Acquire technical artifacts: logs, screenshots, and access records. When unavailable publicly, ask counsel whether redacted versions can be shared under protective order.
5. Find contemporaneous public statements (press releases, company blog posts, social posts) — they often reveal market claims and licensing pitches relevant to damages.
6. Consult two independent experts: a forensic engineer (for logs/API interpretation) and an economist (for damages modeling). Ask both for short summaries you can quote.
7. Prepare a clear explainer showing how the damages number was computed. Use conservative assumptions to avoid overclaiming.
8. Contextualize: compare this award to other adtech dispute outcomes in 2024–2026 to show trend lines and industry impact.

Advanced strategies for creators and legal reporters in 2026

Adtech litigation in 2026 increasingly intersects with AI-driven attribution, privacy-by-design measurement platforms, and cross-border data rules. Here are advanced ways to stay ahead:

• Automate docket monitoring: Use alerts for PACER or third‑party services to get immediate updates when filings appear.
• Standardize a timeline template: Log date, document, page, quoted language, and reporter takeaway — this saves hours when trial moves quickly.
• Build a reusable evidence checklist: For adtech suits, the same classes of docs matter: logs, license terms, expert reports, and internal comms.
• Leverage technical readers: Pair a tech-savvy reporter with a data engineer to parse complex exhibits and translate them for your audience.
• Contextualize regulatory environment: Track FTC and EU measurement guidance (2024–2025 updates) because rulings and settlements are shaped by regulatory expectations about transparency.

Common pitfalls and how to avoid them

• Avoid reporting damages as factual without linking to the verdict form or judgment. The docketed judgment is the single authoritative source for award amount.
• Don’t conflate alleged facts from complaints with proven facts. Use clear language like “alleged” until a judgment is entered.
• Be cautious when interpreting technical artifacts: timestamps can be altered; always corroborate with an independent forensic expert.
• When quoting internal communications, preserve context and avoid cherry-picking lines that change meaning out of context.

What to watch next: post-trial signals and industry impacts

After a jury award like $18.3M, standard next steps to monitor:

• Post-trial motions: Motions for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL), motions to alter or amend the judgment, or new trial motions can reduce or vacate awards.
• Appeal filings: Appeals in the Ninth Circuit (for the Central District of California) can take months — monitor the docket for notices of appeal and any appellate briefing.
• Settlement talks: Parties often negotiate after a verdict; watch for notices of settlement, which may include confidentiality that limits public disclosure.
• Industry reactions: Competitors and measurement partners will update contracts and product claims to avoid similar exposure. Expect updated license terms and enhanced audit logs across the CTV measurement space in 2026.

"We are in the business of truth, transparency, and trust," iSpot said in a statement after the verdict — a reminder that, in adtech, transparency claims are both a selling point and a legal touchpoint.

Actionable takeaways for reporters and creators

• Immediate: Download the verdict form and judgment from the court docket; use those to confirm the award and the legal basis.
• Within 48 hours: Obtain trial exhibits that underpin damages — especially expert reports and access logs — and summarize them in plain English for your audience.
• Within 2 weeks: Publish a sourced explainer with the damages math and a short FAQ: what was licensed, what was misused, how the jury reached the award.
• Ongoing: Track post-trial motion filings and appeals; update your story as new orders or settlements are filed.

Downloadable checklist (use in your reporting workflow)

Before you file a public story, confirm these items:

• Verdict/judgment downloaded (filed with clerk)
• Amended complaint & answer on hand
• List of admitted trial exhibits and their exhibit numbers
• Expert reports (both sides) summarized in one paragraph each
• Forensic log summary and an expert interpretation
• At least one corroborating external source or public statement

Final perspective — what EDO v. iSpot signals for adtech reporting in 2026

The $18.3M award is a wake-up call: data licensing disputes in the adtech world are no longer back‑office contract disputes — they are front-page business stories with significant legal and financial consequences. For reporters and creators, the modern story requires both legal literacy and technical verification skills. Build the evidence dossier first, then write the narrative. That order preserves credibility and helps readers understand not just who won, but precisely why they won.

Call to action

Need a ready-made timeline template and evidence checklist tailored for adtech disputes? Subscribe to facts.live for the downloadable dossier, automated docket alerts, and expert-vetted templates you can reuse for future litigation coverage. Sign up to get the EDO v. iSpot timeline pack and a step-by-step damages calculator built for reporters.

Related Reading

• Smart Procurement: Monitor CES Trends to Future-Proof Your Office Purchases
• Buying Refurbished Pet Tech: Cameras, Feeders and Wearables — Pros, Cons and Warranty Tips
• How Antitrust Actions Affect App-Based Downloaders: Lessons from Apple vs India
• Teacher Module: How to Produce Short Quran Videos for YouTube and Social Platforms
• Preorder Roundup: Where to Buy the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles MTG Set at the Best Price