Some content comes down. Some does not. We tell you which before you pay.
The reputation industry’s central dishonesty is treating those two categories as one. A scraped aggregator copy of a news story and the original article on a national daily are not the same problem, even though they look identical in your search results.
One is often removable in days. The other usually is not removable at all.
What we handle
Complaint-site posts
ConsumerComplaints.in, MouthShut, RipoffReport, gripe sites and forum threads. These rank quickly for brand-name searches because their pages are titled with your exact business name plus words like “fraud” or “complaint” — matching precisely what a suspicious customer types.
Each platform behaves differently. Some have defined terms you can hold them to. RipoffReport operates a published policy of not removing reports at all, including ones it acknowledges may be false. We will tell you which you are dealing with rather than quoting a uniform fee.
Aggregator and scraper copies
A great deal of what looks like news coverage is content farms republishing a single original story. These are frequently removable, sometimes easily. Clearing twelve copies while the original stays up can transform your first page. This is consistently the highest-yield, lowest-cost work available, and it is routinely overlooked.
News articles and media coverage
Honestly: a published article from a legitimate outlet usually stays.
What is achievable more often than people expect is a correction. If the piece contains a factual error — wrong name, wrong company, an allegation reported as a conviction, a case that was later quashed — serious publications do act on documented correction requests. And an article showing the outcome alongside the allegation reads completely differently from the allegation alone.
We pursue corrections, updates and de-indexing applications. We do not promise deletion of accurate journalism.
Personal information
Home address, phone number, Aadhaar or PAN details, bank information, medical records, or details concerning a minor. This route works without the publisher’s cooperation, which makes it both faster and more reliable than most content removal. It should always be attempted first where it applies.
Outdated and orphaned pages
Old profiles, defunct company listings, cached pages for content that no longer exists, and pages that resolve to nothing but still appear in results. Often straightforward and often forgotten.
Social media and video content
Impersonation accounts, defamatory posts, and videos breaching platform policy on YouTube, Instagram, Facebook and X.
The routes we use
- Platform policy complaints. Citing the specific clause with documented evidence. The most effective route, and the one most DIY attempts get wrong by arguing fairness rather than policy.
- Grievance officer complaints. Under the IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, intermediaries operating in India must publish grievance officer details, acknowledge complaints within 24 hours and dispose of them within 15 days. Where an intermediary fails to act on lawful requirements, it risks its safe-harbour protection under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
- Publisher correction requests. Directed at the corrections editor, not the general newsdesk, with primary evidence attached. Costs nothing and works more often than expected.
- De-indexing applications. Through search engines’ own personal-information and legal removal processes.
- Legal coordination. For defamatory content causing quantifiable harm, we work alongside licensed counsel.
The routes we refuse
Fabricated copyright complaints. Filing a false notice claiming the article infringes content you own. This is fraud, it is traceable, and it is filed under your name.
Sham legal proceedings. There is a documented international pattern of removal outfits obtaining takedown orders through defamation suits filed against fictitious defendants, then presenting those orders to search engines. People have faced serious consequences.
Paying journalists or editors. Beyond the obvious problem, it creates a permanent lever someone can use against you later.
If any provider will not name their method when asked directly, that evasion is your answer.
The question we ask that others do not
Is this content currently costing you more than a public fight over it would?
Escalation backfires. A legal notice sent over a mild post gets screenshotted and shared far more widely than the original. A removal campaign against a journalist becomes a story about the removal campaign.
Open a private browser window and search your name. If the content sits at position eighteen and nobody has mentioned it to you in a year, the correct action may be to monitor it and do nothing. That is a legitimate outcome of an assessment, and we will tell you when we reach it.
When suppression is the honest answer
For accurate, lawful content on page one, removal is unavailable and suppression is the working strategy — building enough credible material under your name to push the result below where people look.
It takes three to six months for visible movement and requires sustained work to hold. We will not sell it to you as a quick fix, and we will not sell you removal when this is what your situation actually needs.
Send us the links
You will get a written breakdown within one working day: what is realistically removable and on what grounds, what is suppression work, what you can do yourself for free, and what is best left alone.
Remove Negative Articles is an online reputation management company. We are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice; where a matter requires it, we work alongside licensed counsel. Outcomes depend on the jurisdiction, the publisher and platform policies, and removal cannot be guaranteed in advance.