Ad fraud isn’t just a marketing problem anymore — it’s a full-scale threat to the trust that powers the digital economy. As Data Privacy Week 2026 puts a global spotlight on protecting personal information and ensuring accountability online, the growing fraud crisis in digital advertising feels more urgent than ever.
In 2024 alone, fraud in mobile advertising jumped 21%, while programmatic ad fraud drained nearly $50 billion from the industry. During data privacy week 2026, these numbers serve as a reminder that ad fraud is not only about wasted budgets — it’s also about how consumer data moves, gets tracked, and sometimes misused across complex ecosystems.
This urgency is reflected in the rapid growth of the ad fraud detection tools market, expected to rise from $410.7 million in 2024 to more than $2 billion by 2034. And in the context of data privacy week 2026, the conversation is shifting beyond fraud prevention to a bigger question: if ads are being manipulated and user data is being shared without clear oversight, who is truly in control?
To unpack these challenges, The Cyber Express team, during data privacy week 2026, spoke with Dhiraj Gupta, CTO & Co-founder of mFilterIt, a technology leader at the forefront of helping brands win the battle against ad fraud and restore integrity across the advertising ecosystem. With a background in telecom and a passion for building AI-driven solutions, Gupta argues that brands can no longer rely on surface-level compliance or platform-reported metrics.
As he puts it,
“Independent verification and data-flow audits are critical because they validate what actually happens in a campaign, not just what media plans, platforms, or dashboards report.”
Read the excerpt from the data privacy week 2026 interview below to understand why real-time audits, stronger privacy controls, and continuous accountability are quickly becoming non-negotiable in the fight against fraud — and in rebuilding consumer trust in digital advertising.
Interview Excerpt: Data Privacy Week 2026 Special
TCE: Why are independent verification and data-flow audits becoming essential for brands beyond just detecting ad fraud?
Gupta: Independent verification and data-flow audits are critical because they validate what actually happens in a campaign, not just what media plans, platforms, or dashboards report. They provide evidence-based accountability to regulators, advertisers, and agencies, allowing brands to move from assumed compliance to provable control.
Importantly, these audits don’t only verify whether impressions are real; they also assess whether user data is being accessed, shared, or reused – such as for remarketing or profiling, in ways the brand never explicitly approved. In today’s regulatory environment, intent is no longer enough. Brands must be able to demonstrate operational control over how data moves across their digital ecosystem.
TCE: How can unauthorized or excessive tracking of users occur even when a brand believes it is compliant with privacy norms?
Gupta: In many cases, this happens not due to malicious intent, but because of operational complexity and the push for funnel optimization and deeper data mapping.
Common scenarios include tags or SDKs triggering secondary or tertiary data calls that are not disclosed to the advertiser, and vendors activating new data parameters, such as device IDs or lead identifiers without explicit approval. Over time, incremental changes in tracking configurations can significantly expand data collection beyond what was originally consented to or contractually permitted, even though the brand may still believe it is operating within compliance frameworks.
TCE: How does programmatic advertising contribute to widespread sharing of user data across multiple intermediaries?
Gupta: Programmatic advertising is inherently multi-layered. A single ad impression can involve dozens of intermediaries like DSPs, SSPs, data providers, verification partners, and identity resolution platforms, each receiving some form of user signal for bidding, measurement, or optimization.
While consent is often collected once, the data derived from that consent may be replicated, enriched, and reused multiple times across the supply chain. Without real-time data-flow monitoring, brands have very limited visibility into how far that data travels, who ultimately accesses it, or how long it persists across partner systems.
TCE: What risks do brands face if they don’t fully track the activities of their data partners, even when they don’t directly handle consumer information?
Gupta: Even when brands do not directly process personally identifiable information, they remain accountable for how their broader ecosystem behaves.
The risks include regulatory exposure, reputational damage, erosion of consumer trust, and an inability to defend compliance claims during audits or investigations. Regulators are increasingly asking brands to demonstrate active control, not just contractual intent. Without independent verification and documented evidence, brands effectively carry residual compliance risk by default.
TCE: Why do consent frameworks sometimes fail to ensure that user data is controlled as intended?
Gupta: Consent frameworks are effective at capturing permission, but far less effective at enforcing downstream behaviour.
They typically do not monitor what happens after consent is granted, whether data usage aligns with stated purposes, whether new vendors are added, or whether data access expands over time. Without execution-level oversight, consent becomes symbolic rather than operational. For example, data that was shared for campaign measurement may later be reused by third parties for audience profiling, without the user’s awareness and often without the brand’s visibility.
TCE: How can brands bridge the gap between regulatory intent and real-world implementation of privacy rules?
Gupta: Brands need to shift from document-based compliance to behaviour-based verification.
This means auditing live campaigns, tracking actual data access, and continuously validating that data usage aligns with both consent terms and declared purposes. For instance, in quick-commerce or hyperlocal advertising, sensitive data like precise pin codes can be captured through data layers or partner integrations without the brand’s direct knowledge. Only runtime monitoring can surface such risks and align real-world execution with regulatory intent.
TCE: What strategies or tools can brands use to identify unauthorized data access within complex digital ecosystems?
Gupta: Effective control requires continuous, not one-time, oversight.
Key strategies include independent runtime audits, continuous monitoring of data calls, partner-level risk scoring, and full data-journey mapping across platforms and vendors. Rather than relying solely on contractual assurances or annual audits, brands need ongoing visibility into how data is accessed and shared, especially as campaign structures, vendors, and technologies change rapidly.
TCE: How does excessive tracking or shadow profiling affect consumers’ privacy and trust in digital services?
Gupta: Consumers are becoming increasingly aware of how their data is used, and excessive or opaque tracking creates a perception of surveillance rather than value exchange.
When users feel they have lost control over their personal information, trust declines, not only in platforms, but also in the brands advertising on them. For example, when consumers receive hyper-local ads on social media for products they were discussing offline, they often perceive it as continuous tracking, even if the data correlation occurred through indirect signals. This perception alone can damage brand credibility and long-term loyalty.
TCE: In your view, what will become the most critical privacy controls for organizations in the next 2–3 years? What practical steps can organizations take today?
Gupta: The most critical controls will be data-flow transparency, strict enforcement of purpose limitation, and continuous partner accountability.
Organizations will be expected to prove where data goes, why it goes there, and whether that usage aligns with user consent and regulatory expectations. Privacy will increasingly be measured by operational evidence, not policy declarations.
Practically, brands should start by independently auditing all live trackers and data endpoints, not just approved vendors. Privacy indicators should be reviewed alongside media and performance KPIs, and verification must be continuous rather than episodic. Most importantly, privacy must be treated as part of the brand’s trust infrastructure, not merely as a compliance checklist. Brands that invest in transparency and control today will be far better positioned as regulations tighten and consumer expectations continue to rise.