The threat of MFA sites: Why quality is key to protecting your brand

One of the greatest fears of any digital advertiser is MFA (Made-for-Advertising) sites. These are low-quality sites defined by their excessive ad placements, poor content, and reliance on paid traffic. MFA sites don’t just fail to drive meaningful results for your campaigns—they can actively harm your brand’s reputation and open the door to ad fraud.

In the complex and often opaque world of programmatic advertising, MFA sites have room to thrive. They exploit the lack of transparency, slipping into media buys unnoticed, costing brands money, and diluting campaign performance. This opacity in the programmatic ecosystem makes it incredibly difficult for advertisers to manage and optimise campaigns effectively. So what can be done?

The appeal of blocking MFA sites

Blocking MFA sites might seem like a straightforward fix, but it’s far more complicated than it appears. Vendors who offer MFA tracking and blocking often use subjective, inconsistent definitions of what constitutes “MFA”. Many classify websites as either “MFA” or “Not MFA,” leaving buyers with little control over the trade-offs between scale, cost, and risk.

This binary approach overlooks a critical flaw: there is no clear line separating MFA sites from non-MFA sites. A domain that just barely avoids being classified as an MFA site could still be a poor-quality environment, but it escapes the blocklist, meaning it continues to appear in your media buys undetected. As a result, many MFA sites still manage to fly under the radar for years, wasting ad spend and eroding campaign performance.

Why MFA blocklists are not enough

While MFA blocklists may seem like a solution, they often fall short. Because MFA sites regularly change their domain names, blocklists can quickly become outdated. This creates an illusion of protection, but in reality, low-quality sites continue to sneak into your media buys. What’s needed instead is a proactive approach focused on identifying and prioritising quality inventory.

A case in point: The Forbes MFA scandal

The Forbes MFA scandal is one of the most infamous examples of how these sites can manipulate the programmatic ecosystem. Forbes, a highly reputable publisher, launched a subdomain (www.3forbes.com) that repackaged content from the main site into low-quality, ad-heavy formats like slideshows and listicles. Most of the traffic to this subdomain came from paid sources, and the site was essentially invisible to search engines.

What made this case so alarming was how it bypassed every major piece of technology in the ad supply chain, from Prebid to SSPs, DSPs, and verification tools. For seven years, this subdomain tricked advertisers into thinking they were buying inventory from www.forbes.com, when in reality, they were investing in what was essentially an MFA site.

If Forbes—one of the most trusted names in media—can fall into this trap, it raises a serious question: How can brands protect themselves from low-quality inventory?

The true solution: Focusing on quality inventory

Rather than relying on flawed blocklists or vague MFA definitions, advertisers need to shift their focus to quality inventory. What truly drives results isn’t just keeping MFA sites at bay but investing in premium, trustworthy placements that align with your brand’s values and target audience. High-quality inventory ensures your ads are seen in reputable environments, leading to better engagement, more meaningful interactions, and long-term brand growth.

Prioritise quality inventory and safeguard your brand

Ready to stop wasting money on low-quality MFA sites and start investing in high-quality inventory that drives real results? Our upcoming report dives deep into how advertisers can identify premium ad placements and avoid the pitfalls of MFA sites with PIQ.

If you're interested in receiving the full report, packed with actionable insights and real-world case studies, register your interest now to be among the first to access it.