Advertisers who believe they’ve fully stepped away from X (formerly Twitter) may still be sending budget to the platform without realizing it — because X quietly opened much of its ad inventory to programmatic buyers and major demand sources like Google Ads can purchase that inventory indirectly. This is not hypothetical: industry consultants and reporting show programmatic pathways, supply‑side partnerships, and automation defaults that together create a practical loophole for brands trying to avoid the site.
In early 2025 X began authorizing third‑party adtech partners to sell its inventory in the open programmatic market. That pivot away from a direct‑sales-only model included deals with well‑known supply‑side platforms (SSPs), notably PubMatic and later Magnite, and it effectively put X’s native placements into exchanges that demand‑side platforms (DSPs) and large buyers can access. At the same time, major ad buying pathways inside Google Ads — including the Google Display Network (GDN), Video Partners, Search Partners, and the cross‑network, automated formats such as Performance Max and Demand Gen — can route impressions to a very broad set of inventory sources. Google’s automated systems optimize toward performance signals and cost efficiency, which can push spend toward cheaper CPM inventory unless buyers actively constrain placements. Industry observers and practitioners flagged that combination as the mechanism enabling inadvertent X delivery from otherwise agnostic Google campaigns. A separate but related flashpoint accelerated advertiser alarm: Grok (xAI’s chatbot) added image‑editing and image‑generation features that were misused to create sexualized images, including some depicting minors. The episode produced regulatory attention and public outcry, underscoring why brands might want to avoid X placements in the first place.
The episode is a reminder that in modern ad tech, policy statements are insufficient without rigorous, repeatable operational controls and transparent reporting. For brands whose risk tolerances are low, the immediate priority should be to audit campaign types that include partner inventory, apply explicit exclusions, and validate outcomes with independent verification. For the ad tech ecosystem at large, the path forward requires better inventory transparency, standardized signals for exclusions, and faster mechanisms to propagate safety decisions across the programmatic supply chain.
What remains indisputable is this: programmatic plumbing matters. The cheapest CPMs and the benefits of automation are real, but they must be balanced against brand risk — and that balance is achieved through disciplined operations, not assumptions.
Source: MediaPost X Loophole: Why Google Ads May Still Appear There
Background
In early 2025 X began authorizing third‑party adtech partners to sell its inventory in the open programmatic market. That pivot away from a direct‑sales-only model included deals with well‑known supply‑side platforms (SSPs), notably PubMatic and later Magnite, and it effectively put X’s native placements into exchanges that demand‑side platforms (DSPs) and large buyers can access. At the same time, major ad buying pathways inside Google Ads — including the Google Display Network (GDN), Video Partners, Search Partners, and the cross‑network, automated formats such as Performance Max and Demand Gen — can route impressions to a very broad set of inventory sources. Google’s automated systems optimize toward performance signals and cost efficiency, which can push spend toward cheaper CPM inventory unless buyers actively constrain placements. Industry observers and practitioners flagged that combination as the mechanism enabling inadvertent X delivery from otherwise agnostic Google campaigns. A separate but related flashpoint accelerated advertiser alarm: Grok (xAI’s chatbot) added image‑editing and image‑generation features that were misused to create sexualized images, including some depicting minors. The episode produced regulatory attention and public outcry, underscoring why brands might want to avoid X placements in the first place. What changed at X (programmatic onboarding) and why it matters
X opened the supply path
Historically, X sold most of its inventory through direct relationships and its own advertising interface. Beginning in late 2024 and into 2025 the company started listing third‑party sellers in its ads.txt and forming SSP partnerships to expose inventory more broadly. The stated commercial rationale: enlarge the pool of demand, make ad buying simpler for programmatic buyers, and recapture advertising dollars after a steep post‑acquisition decline. The practical effect: X inventory started appearing in exchanges and SSPs that connect to Google‑facing demand channels.SSPs named in the rollout
- PubMatic was confirmed as an authorized seller in late 2024, which broadened X’s programmatic footprint.
- In early 2025 X added Magnite, a major independent SSP, which both legitimized the open supply path and made it easier for large buyers to include or exclude X inventory in programmatic deals.
How Google Ads (and automated campaign types) can end up buying X delivery
The mechanics in plain language
Google Ads and other major demand engines operate across a constellation of inventory sources: Google‑owned properties (Search, YouTube, Discover), curated partner networks, and an open pool of programmatic placements reachable via GDN/Video Partners and programmatic integrations. When advertisers enable broad distribution through formats like Performance Max, Demand Gen, or by allowing Search/Video partners, Google’s optimization systems make allocation decisions across this full set of supply to meet target KPIs (conversions, CPA, ROAS) at the lowest cost. If X’s programmatic inventory is surfaced through the supply chain at low CPMs, automated bidding can divert impressions there — sometimes without obvious account‑level signals unless advertisers inspect placement reports and set explicit exclusions.Where transparency breaks down
Two related transparency problems enable accidental buys:- Historically opaque partner networks (e.g., the broad set of Search Partners) made it hard to see exact sites where impressions appeared. Google has added site‑level reporting in the Search Partner network and other improvements, but gaps remain for some cross‑network, automated flows and certain aggregated reporting modes.
- Automated formats such as Performance Max and Demand Gen abstract away placement selection: advertisers supply creative assets and goals, and Google’s AI decides where to show them. That abstraction improves scale and automation — but it also reduces manual control and increases the chance of indirect exposure to unintended domains.
What industry practitioners reported
A martech/adtech consultant publicly warned that X had made a significant portion of its auctions available programmatically and that Google Ads had become a primary buyer on such inventory — a claim grounded in direct measurement and campaign behavior observed by practitioners. That post included recommended, concrete exclusion steps (e.g., excluding twitter.com and x.com as web placements and the mobile app IDs) as stopgaps for brands that must avoid the platform. The core assertion — that Google Ads can buy X supply via Search/Video partners and Programmatic channels — aligns with how the ad ecosystem routes programmatic supply and is supported by multiple ad‑tech practitioners. However, the precise market‑share ranking (e.g., “Google Ads is the top buyer on X”) is based on the consultant’s analysis and public reporting rather than a platform confirmation and therefore should be treated as practitioner intelligence that requires further verification for absolute ranking statements.The brand‑safety fallout: Grok and the regulator spotlight
What happened with Grok
Late December 2025 saw a rapid escalation in misuse of Grok’s image capabilities. Multiple investigative reports and watchdog analyses concluded that users could prompt Grok to generate sexualized images of real people — including, in some cases, images that appeared to depict minors. That triggered global backlash, regulator inquiries, and removal/safeguard pledges from xAI/Grok. The EU, UK and other authorities signaled they were monitoring or taking action; forensic analyses documented thousands of problematic images in short samples. Those facts push risk‑averse brands to exclude X placements entirely — which is why the programmatic workaround matters so much in practice.Why brand safety tools alone don't fully solve it
Major ad platforms have responded by expanding brand suitability and placement‑exclusion tools, and verification vendors (DoubleVerify, IAS, etc. offer third‑party auditing. Google, for example, has rolled out site‑level reporting for Search Partners and enhanced brand‑suitability controls; Microsoft introduced large‑scale website exclusion tools for Search and Audience campaigns to let buyers block thousands of sites centrally. Those are useful controls — but they work if advertisers enable and manage them correctly across every campaign, channel, and account that could deliver programmatic supply. The ecosystem’s new complexity makes a single control insufficient.Practical controls: steps advertisers should take now
The immediate problem is operational, not only policy. Here are clear, prioritized steps brands and agencies should implement to close the loophole:- Audit and map: Create a complete inventory of campaign types that implicitly include partner inventory (Search campaigns with Search Partners, Performance Max, Demand Gen, Display, Video campaigns). Identify every account where automation could route impressions programmatically.
- Apply explicit placement exclusions: Add twitter.com and x.com to website exclusion lists and exclude the known mobile app package names (Android and Apple Store IDs) across Display, Video and Performance Max/ Demand Gen where feasible. These are minimum baseline exclusions — not perfect rescues, but essential first steps.
- Use channel controls: Where possible, select channel‑level settings in Demand Gen and other formats that allow choosing or excluding the Google Display Network or partner channels. Restrict to premium channels (YouTube, Google‑owned) if brand‑safe inventory is essential.
- Require placement transparency from vendors: Demand clearer placement reporting from agency partners and DSPs, and ask for weekly proofs of exclusion list application. Automate alerts for any impressions that show up on black‑listed domains.
- Employ third‑party verification and pre‑bid blocking: Use verification tools (DV, IAS, DoubleVerify, etc. to pre‑bid block risky domains and to run site‑level measurement and showback reporting.
- Test in small holds: If moving to fully automated formats, run small experiments with rigorous holdback structures and monitor placements closely for the first 7–14 days. Log every automated change and tie it back to a human approval workflow.
Technical verification and what is and isn’t independently verifiable
This article cross‑checked the following load‑bearing claims:- X authorized major SSP partnerships (PubMatic, Magnite) and moved inventory programmatically. This is supported by contemporaneous reporting from industry outlets and platform announcements.
- Grok’s image‑generation features were misused to create sexualized images, including content that raised CSAM concerns; regulators and watchdogs have publicly flagged the issue. This has been documented by mainstream outlets and regulatory reporting.
- Google Ads’ campaign types (Performance Max, Demand Gen, Search/Video partner extensions) can route impressions across broad partner and programmatic supply; Google documentation and industry reporting describe the mechanics and the transparency limitations. That technical possibility is verifiable; the exact share of X inventory purchased by Google Ads at any given time requires platform‑level transaction data that is not publicly disclosed.
- Precise ranking claims such as “Google Ads has become the top buying platform on X” are practitioner observations (sourced from an ad‑tech consultant’s post and industry writeups). They are plausible given market flows, but they are not confirmed by platform transaction data published by X or Google, so they should be reported as professional intelligence rather than platform‑verified fact. Advertisers should treat such claims as a high‑probability operational warning and verify against their own traffic and placement logs.
Strategic implications for brand and ad operations
For marketers and agencies
- Policy vs operations gap: Public brand policies that ban X can be undermined by operational defaults. Contract language alone won’t protect reputation if automation and vendor supply paths are misconfigured. Operational runbooks and technical audits must align with policy language.
- Automation trade‑offs: Performance Max and similar automated formats can deliver efficiency and scale, but they also transfer placement decisions to algorithms. That trade‑off must be evaluated explicitly in onboarding and approval flows.
For platform and regulatory watchers
- Transparency pressure will grow: Regulators and brand coalitions will expect clearer mappings of supply chains and easier, standardized programs for whitelisting/blacklisting. Industry precedents (e.g., site‑level reporting for Search Partners) demonstrate incremental progress, but more standardized disclosures may be necessary.
- Legal and reputational risk accelerants: When content moderation failures on a platform are public and severe (such as Grok’s image controversies), the reputational cost to brands whose ads appear nearby can be outsized, particularly in regulated markets. That raises the value of conservative inventory control in sensitive verticals.
Checklist: immediate technical actions (for ad operations teams)
- Exclude twitter.com and x.com from site placements across Google Ads accounts; add mobile app package exclusion for com.twitter.android and the known iOS app ID to app placement exclusion lists.
- Audit all Performance Max, Demand Gen, Display, Video and Search campaigns for partner opt‑ins; turn off Search Partners and Video/Display partner toggles where brand safety is imperative.
- Apply account‑level shared exclusion lists and enforce them via manager accounts to reduce configuration drift. Use Microsoft’s approach as a template for scale where helpful.
- Configure placement alerts and weekly placement reviews; validate with third‑party verification reports.
- Document and require manual approval for any campaign or creative that will run in automated, cross‑network formats.
Longer‑term considerations
- Reevaluate dependence on opaque automation for critical brand campaigns. If a single impression on a specific domain is unacceptable, automation should be limited or human oversight increased.
- Push for contractual SLAs with partners and agencies that require placement transparency and rapid remediation when brand‑safety incidents occur.
- Advocate within industry bodies for standard, machine‑readable publisher IDs and exchange‑level signals that enable automated exclusion propagation across platforms.
Conclusion
The convergence of programmatic supply openings on X, large SSP partnerships, and automated buying layers like Google Ads’ Performance Max and Demand Gen has created an operational hazard that many brands did not anticipate: the ability to buy placements on a platform you are actively trying to avoid. The technical fix is straightforward in concept — explicit placement exclusions, channel control, third‑party verification, and tighter approval gates — but the operational work to implement and maintain those controls across dozens or hundreds of accounts is nontrivial.The episode is a reminder that in modern ad tech, policy statements are insufficient without rigorous, repeatable operational controls and transparent reporting. For brands whose risk tolerances are low, the immediate priority should be to audit campaign types that include partner inventory, apply explicit exclusions, and validate outcomes with independent verification. For the ad tech ecosystem at large, the path forward requires better inventory transparency, standardized signals for exclusions, and faster mechanisms to propagate safety decisions across the programmatic supply chain.
What remains indisputable is this: programmatic plumbing matters. The cheapest CPMs and the benefits of automation are real, but they must be balanced against brand risk — and that balance is achieved through disciplined operations, not assumptions.
Source: MediaPost X Loophole: Why Google Ads May Still Appear There
