Failure As A Service: Reputation Defenders Batting .000 Against Google's DMCA Team

from the 'well,-at-first-sucking-at-stuff-was-just-a-hobby...' dept

Yet another person is trying to abuse the DMCA takedown system to bury criticism. "Trying" is the key word here. So is "failing," because that's all "Reputation Defenders" has done so far. Since December 2015, Reputation Defenders has issued at least 38 DMCA notices. And to date (its latest request was May 23, 2017), it has yet to see Google delist a single URL.

There's no information to help track down this inept defender of reputations. It could be the one promoted in this YouTube video. Or it could be this former trucker turned reputation management guru. Ultimately, it probably doesn't matter.

The attempted takedowns -- with few exceptions -- target Ripoff Report. The first few efforts start with a very basic assertion of very questionable "facts."

We own the copyrighted names of "Barewire" and "www.http://www.barewire.us" and "Barewire Ltd"

Unlikely. This would be a trademark issue, not a copyright one. And even if it were a copyright issue (and it isn't), someone using a company name to complain about said company isn't, and never has been, copyright (or trademark) infringement.

After a few failures, Reputation Defender changed tactics. Maybe the problem was too few bogus assertions.

We own the copyrighted names anjd phrases: Gino Parker Gino Parker Houston Gino Parker Texas Gino John Industrial Surplus Gino Parker Oil City Surplus shawn Parker Oil City Surplus Rocky Mitchell Oil City Surplus Jimmy John Oil City Surplus Steve John Oil City Surplus Mark John Oil City Surplus shawn Parker Industrial Surplus Rocky Mitchell Industrial Surplus Jimmy John Industrial Surplus Steve John Industrial Surplus Mark John Industrial Surplus Gino John United Surplus Buyers Gino Parker United Surplus Buyers shawn Parker United Surplus Buyers Rocky Mitchell United Surplus Buyers Jimmy John United Surplus Buyers Steve John United Surplus Buyers Mark John United Surplus Buyers This page is using my personal name, company name and personal details without my permission or consent and they are breaking the law under the 1998 European Data protection act. Specifically the clause " not use the data in ways that have unjustified adverse effects on the individuals concerned" this is having an "unjustified adverse effects" on me and my business. The claims made on the page are also completely false.

Again, at best a trademark issue, and even so, no infringement occurred when any Gino Parker variation was used to criticize Geno Parker and his business(es). That includes the UK Data Protection Act Gino Parker/Reputation Defenders quote directly (but somehow fail to correctly name), which has nothing to do with online reviews, but rather the handling of personal information gathered by private companies. Ripoff Report isn't British and the personal data it gathers would be that of reviewers on its site, not those reviewed.

Some time after that, Reputation Defenders apparently viewed the Facebook "take back your copyright" hoax and decided it was what this... um... business model was missing.

We own the copyrighted name of Keith Cleversley. The www.ripoffreport.com page is using my company name and details without my permission or consent and they are breaking the 1988 Berne convention copyright law that USA and Canada signed up for in 1988. Specifically the clause" not use the data in ways that have unjustified adverse effects on the individuals concerned" this is having an "unjustified adverse effects" on me and my business. The claims made on the page are also completely false.

The infamous Berne Convention, which is continually quoted by people who know nothing about intellectual property law but are pretty sure it must forbid stuff they don't like. This DMCA notice is twice as stupid because it cites the Berne Convention but quotes the UK Data Protection Act.

Shortly thereafter, Reputation Defenders' notices drop the Data Protection Act wording but retain the moronic Berne Convention claims, presumably in hopes that it might luck into some wholly-unearned wins in the delisting column.

We own the copyright of Clear Flow Water Solutions. The www.ripoffreport.com page is using my company name and details without our permission or consent and they are breaking the 1988 Berne convention copyright law that USA and Canada signed up for in 1988.

To be sure, this is abuse of the system. But it can probably be chalked up to stupidity, rather than malice. We can only hope that those who've retained Reputation Defenders' "services" are only obligated to pay for results.

Filed Under: copyright, dmca, reputation management, takedowns
Companies: reputation defender

The Latest In Reputation Management: Bogus Defamation Suits From Bogus Companies Against Bogus Defendants

from the with-unwitting-accomplice,-Judicial-Branch dept

Pissed Consumer has uncovered an apparent abuse of the court system by reputation management firms. Getting allegedly defamatory links delisted by Google requires a court order, which is something very few people can actually obtain. But the plaintiffs featured in this Pissed Consumer post seem to have no trouble acquiring these -- often within a few days of filing their lawsuits.

So far, we have collected 11 cases filed in the Superior Court of Contra Costa County in the State of California, where a very suspicious plaintiff files a lawsuit for defamation on one or several third party websites. The lawsuit is filed for a particular Plaintiff, while benefit (removal from search engine) is obtained by another business entity.

Below is just part of the list of cases filed with this court.


What's interesting about all of these cases is how quickly they reach a resolution -- and always in favor of the plaintiff.


In this case it was three weeks. In a normal defamation case, the plaintiff would be lucky to have been granted permission to pursue discovery of the anonymous poster's real identity by this point. But in these cases, not only has the person been identified, but they've also entered a sworn statement admitting their guilt. With this judgment in hand, the plaintiffs approach Google and have the "defamatory" links delisted. (Nearly) instant SEO win.

This suspicious timeline is reflected in other cases filed in the same court.

Now, since it is an anonymous review, let’s ask ourselves a question: how did Attorney Mascott find a defendant in this case without subpoenaing PissedConsumer for their identity? Did he just get lucky? How was Demoin Stroman III, the Defendant in this case, was located just one day after the case had been filed; and not only was located, but also managed to almost immediately provide AttorneyMascott with his fully executed Affidavit? Now, if it were a single case, we could say all this was possible. However, when we are looking at 11 (! ELEVEN ) cases in Contra Costa county in California with exactly the same pattern, it “all this” starts looking quite suspicious…

Just as suspicious is the fact that the defamed party apparently knew the defamer (found him in one day!) but still chose to go through the court system, rather than have the defamer provide a notarized letter to Pissed Consumer directly to get the original review taken down, rather than just the Google search results.

But this is all about cleaning up search results, rather than actually hunting down the real people behind the anonymous Pissed Consumer postings. The court order obtained in this case doesn't even refer to the original posting, nor its actual URL.

The allegedly defamatory statements as presented in the Final Judgment are actually not on the PissedConsumer page that is being removed. Whoever the perpetrators are in this case, their approach was to get Google to de-index the PissedConsumer listing (sub-domain page) for keyword ‘Reputation Defender’.

The text shown in paragraph g. above is the only text that can be assumed to be referred to in the case – “they lie” – verbatim text in the review (Review ID 203379) actually says “Reputation Defender lies…” based on the context of the case. This is only our assumption, since we did not find the exact text on http://reputation-defender.pissedconsumer.com. The language “Reputation Defender lies…” is actually a part of the review –http://reputation-defender.pissedconsumer.com/reputation-defender-lies-20101019203379.html– that was posted anonymously in 2010.

Another company whose web presence used to be defined by negative reviewshas cleaned up its search results using the Contra Costa court system. There's only the smallest indication on the first page of Google search results that something might be off.


That link leads to this takedown request and court order. Once again, the targeted URL is not the negative review, but the entire subdomain referring to BlueGreen Resorts (http://bluegreen-resorts.pissedconsumer.com). And, again, the sworn statement from the supposed defamer was obtained in two days, putting this on the fast track for a judgment in favor of the plaintiff Majestic Vacations (which doesn't even exist according to California business records). In a normal case, any forward movement would still be months away. The docket for this case shows a case management conference set for July 13… which has now been nullified by the speedy delivery of a sworn admission of guilt.

In the case of RepDefense Solutions suing on behalf of Reputation Defender, that "company" was "formed" on the same day its lawsuit was filed: February 2nd. Just as attorney Owen Mascott's link to any reputation management firm cannot be determined at this point, nominal company figurehead "Monica Andersen" is a similar dead end.

The two attorneys behind the filings Pissed Consumer uncovered have had their licenses suspended multiple times. What appears to be happening here -- fake companies suing fake defamers -- should result in further discipline, if anyone can tie the two to a reputation management firm… or to the defendants who are always magically located and convinced to sign statements with a couple of days of filing.

These two are apparently helping questionable businesses paper over their dismal reputations with possibly fraudulently-obtained court orders. Unfortunately, courts can be manipulated just like search engine results by those willing to try anything to clean up their online reputation. Putting more eyes on this shady reputation management tactic will hopefully expose the entity behind it.

Filed Under: censorship, contra costa county, court order, defamation, owen mascott, reputation management, scams, takedowns
Companies: bluegreen resorts, pissed consumer, repdefense solutions, reputation defender