[ancap]

In order for their to be fraud you would have be a party in some economic transaction. In the case of advertising the parties are the ad provider and the content provider. Are you suggesting the content provider is being defrauded? How so? An advertisement which causes a browser to make thousands of request does not necessarily denote fraud unless the contract the ad provider and content provider had prohibits it.

[manigandham]

There are more parties including the consumer and the ad buyer. Ad fraud almost always means the ad buyer being defrauded by buying digital advertising that is not executed according to contract terms, if at all.

[ancap]

In my comment the content provider is what you termed the ad buyer. When you say consumer, who are you referring to? A person who visits a website with an advertisement? If so, they are not a party involved in an economic transaction.

> Ad fraud almost always means the ad buyer being defrauded by buying digital advertising that is not executed according to contract terms, if at all

If this is what you mean by fraud, why do you say there are no consequences for the violation of the contract? The ad buyer can seek recourse through a civil suit. Additionally the ad buyer can switch to a different advertisement provider.

[manigandham]

Content providers are publishers being subsidized by ad buyers who are served by ad service vendors to show ads to consumers. Consumers are involved since their attention is being monetized, that is an economic transaction.

Civil suits will cost more time and money than it would be worth. Also the supply chain is comprised of people who move between companies and buy from friends and whoever they like the most. Combine that with lack of government enforcement and the easy of forming a new company with a clean reputation and there are no consequences.