Content removal and reputation management, handled as documented casework

What we do

Three areas of work

Each area has its own methods, its own realistic timelines, and its own hard limits. Pick the one that matches your situation.

1. 01

   Content removal

   Takedown requests filed against the host, the platform, and the search engine — each mapped to a specific legal or policy ground, with the evidence package prepared before anything is submitted.

   →
2. 02

   Reputation management

   Search result suppression for material that cannot lawfully be removed: owned properties, structured profiles, and published content built to outrank what is already there.

   →
3. 03

   Account recovery

   Recovering hijacked or wrongly disabled accounts through the platform's own verification and appeal channels — never through credential attacks, which are illegal and get the account permanently banned.

   →

How a removal case actually runs

Most failed removal attempts fail at step two, not step three. A request filed without an identified legal basis gets a template refusal, and a refused request is harder to re-file than a well-prepared first submission.

1. Evidence capture before contact

   URLs, timestamps, author handles and archived copies are recorded first. Content that disappears during a dispute is worthless as evidence if it was never preserved, and re-uploads cannot be proven without a baseline.

2. Legal basis mapped per URL

   Each URL is assigned a specific ground: DMCA, non-consensual imagery policy, personal data exposure, platform terms violation, or defamation. URLs with no viable ground are separated out and routed to suppression instead of being filed anyway.

3. Parallel submission

   Requests go to the host, the platform, and the search engine at the same time rather than sequentially. Host removal solves the problem outright; search removal limits reach while the host request is pending.

4. Escalation on refusal

   A first refusal is usually a template response, not a final decision. Appeals add the evidence the reviewer did not have. Where a platform will only act on a court order, the case is referred to counsel rather than pushed further.

5. Ninety days of monitoring

   Removed content reappears more often than clients expect — mirrors, scrapers, and archive copies. Monitoring after the removal is the part most providers skip and the part that determines whether the result holds.

Why the legal basis matters more than the wording

The single biggest predictor of whether a takedown succeeds is not how persuasively it is written. It is whether the request cites a ground the platform is already obligated or configured to act on. Copyright and non-consensual imagery have mandated, staffed review pipelines. A complaint that content is unfair does not.

This is also why the first consultation is an assessment rather than a sales call. If every URL in a case falls into the bottom two categories, removal is the wrong tool and we say so before any engagement begins.

Removal or deindexing — they are not the same outcome

Clients often ask for "removal" when what they can actually get is deindexing, and the difference determines whether the content is gone or merely harder to find. Understanding which one is on the table changes what a realistic result looks like.

Where a publisher refuses to delete, deindexing plus suppression is usually the honest ceiling. That is a real result — most people never go past the first page of search results — but it is not the same as the content ceasing to exist, and it should never be sold as if it were. Our guide to removing personal information from Google walks through which requests fall into which category.

Common questions