We set out below the substantive basis for that dispute. All Avantage's rights are expressly reserved without exception.
This letter constitutes and reaffirms Avantage's formal Consultation Request pursuant to Clause 12.2 of the Marketing Services Agreement dated 5 December 2024 (the "Agreement"). Avantage calls upon DBL to engage in good-faith consultation before any legal proceedings are initiated. The one-month consultation period under Clause 12.2 is hereby formally triggered.
DBL did not deliver the services contracted under the Agreement. The campaign that ran from June through August 2025 was executed through an undisclosed, unapproved third-party vendor using platforms never agreed upon, in a manner that produced metrics DBL knew or ought to have known were materially inaccurate. DBL's own written communications confirm these failures. Avantage's platform analytics independently corroborate them at the production data level. Avantage's termination on 13 February 2026 was valid and grounded in Clause 10.2 of the Agreement. No further amounts are owed.
1. UNAUTHORIZED VENDOR SUBSTITUTION — BREACH OF CLAUSE 3.4
Schedule 1 of the Agreement specified that media investment would be deployed through a Crypto Advertising Network and a Programmatic Platform. In May 2025, DBL's Paid Media Director communicated in writing that the originally planned platforms — including BitMedia and StackAdapt — could not function as intended for this campaign. Rather than issuing a formal Change Request under Clause 3.4, which requires fifteen business days' written notice and written acceptance by Avantage, DBL unilaterally substituted Culturesync Media as its primary campaign vendor without Avantage's knowledge, written approval, or consent. This substitution was never formalized in a contract amendment as required by Clause 13.3 and was not disclosed to Avantage until DBL's own email correspondence in February 2026. The unauthorized substitution of the contracted media delivery infrastructure constitutes a fundamental breach of the Agreement.
2. PRE-CONTRACT KNOWLEDGE OF PLATFORM LIMITATIONS — MISREPRESENTATION UNDER CLAUSE 10.2
DBL's engagement with Avantage commenced in April 2024, seven months before the Agreement was signed. During that period and into early 2025, DBL was already aware that Avantage's licensing position in target markets would restrict access to premium programmatic advertising networks. DBL's own written communications confirm that a programmatic partner required a clickable gambling license before agreeing to carry Avantage's advertising, and that DBL "struggled to activate" their premium ad network due to Avantage's licensing situation in target markets. Despite this knowledge, DBL executed a USD $230,000 agreement specifying those same premium channels as the contracted delivery mechanism, without disclosing this known material limitation. This constitutes misrepresentation in the performance of the Agreement within the meaning of Clause 10.2(a) and provides independent grounds for Avantage's termination.
3. MATERIAL DISCREPANCY IN CAMPAIGN REPORTING — MISREPRESENTATION CONFIRMED BY PRODUCTION ANALYTICS
DBL's own campaign performance report for the period June 25 to August 15, 2025, claims 28,334 total clicks. Avantage's production analytics platform, Mixpanel, records the following figures for the identical period, drawn directly from the live Bet5 Production Analytics board and generated automatically in real time — not prepared for the purposes of this dispute:
The Mixpanel data attributes the 2,359 visitors to specific DBL UTM campaign names matching the creative identifiers in DBL's own report, confirming the tracking was functional and correctly attributing available traffic to DBL's campaigns. The discrepancy therefore does not arise from a failure to capture DBL traffic — it arises because 92% of the clicks DBL reported never generated a session in Avantage's production analytics system at all.
This is further confirmed by Avantage's independently conducted Campaign Performance Audit Report, which cross-referenced DBL-tagged UTM data against platform analytics and recorded:
A discrepancy of this magnitude — consistent across all ad creatives and the entire campaign period and confirmed by both independent audit and live production platform data — is not attributable to normal variance between ad server and analytics measurements, which industry standards place at 10–20%. It indicates systemic tracking failure, artificial traffic, or both. Pursuant to Clause 9.3, DBL cannot attribute this failure to third-party vendors. The management, oversight, and verification of those vendors' performance was DBL's contractual obligation.
4. GEOGRAPHIC TARGETING OUTSIDE CONTRACTED SCOPE
Schedule 1 specified geographic targeting of Japan (Tier 1), Thailand and/or Malaysia (Tier 2), and Indonesia and/or Philippines (Tier 3). Avantage's platform analytics for the campaign period record impressions and attributed conversions from Australia, India, Italy, Bangladesh, and other markets not included in the contracted Scope of Work. Japan, designated as the highest-budget Tier 1 market, produced negligible verified results on Avantage's platform. Media spend was deployed to unauthorized geographies without Avantage's knowledge or approval.
5. VALID TERMINATION UNDER CLAUSE 10.2
For the reasons set out above, Avantage's termination on 13 February 2026 was validly grounded in Clause 10.2(a) — misrepresentation in the performance of the Agreement — and Clause 10.2(b) — unethical business practices in connection with the performance of the Agreement. Your letter's characterization that performance concerns were raised "for the first time" at termination is factually incorrect. Avantage's concerns regarding the discrepancy between DBL's reported metrics and Avantage's platform analytics were formally communicated to DBL through Avantage's representative, Philip Chiu of Beyond Media Global, on 29 January 2026 — two weeks before the termination email. DBL received and responded to that communication in writing.
Avantage's position is that DBL is not entitled to further payment where the services purportedly completed were delivered through unauthorized vendors, produced unverifiable metrics, and were accompanied by reporting that materially misrepresented actual campaign performance — misrepresentation now confirmed by Avantage's own production platform data.
Avantage is in possession of an extensive documentary record supporting the above, including:
Should DBL wish to engage in genuine good-faith consultation under Clause 12.2, Avantage is prepared to participate. As a precondition to any such consultation, Avantage formally requests DBL produce the following:
a) Verified third-party invoices from Culturesync Media and any other subcontractors, confirming actual media spend deployed on Avantage's behalf with corresponding placement receipts.
b) Raw UTM tracking logs and redirect configuration records for the full campaign period.
c) A written explanation of why Culturesync Media was substituted without a Clause 3.4 Change Request.
d) Platform-level targeting configuration records confirming the specific geographies to which media spend was directed.
Avantage expressly reserves its right to assert counterclaims in any proceedings, including claims arising from the matters described in this letter.
Should DBL proceed to institute legal proceedings in Hong Kong without first engaging in the Clause 12.2 consultation process, Avantage will draw the court's attention to DBL's failure to comply with the contractual dispute resolution mechanism and will present the full documentary record described above, including the Mixpanel production analytics data.