Jurisdiction: United States Deleted fake Facebook Page

Pages removed from: Facebook

Date of removal: 06 January 2018.

Number of Facebook Pages deleted: 1

Additional information: Our client is a politician who had a fake Facebook Page created to his name. The fake Facebook Page was visually similar to the Facebook Page of our client and included images of our client. Whoever created the similar fake Facebook Page had given the initial impression that the Facebook Page belonged to our politician client. The fake Page which also contained images of our client was used to attack our client personally with personal and political comments which were wrongly attributed to our client. First, our client’s office wrote to Facebook asking to remove the fake Facebook Page but Facebook declined the request, claiming that there was public interest in retaining the Page. Our social media lawyers communicated with Facebook to reject Facebook reasons for refusing to delete the fake Facebook Page. They rely on an established legal principle that there is never public interest in fake information. They also asserted the our client’s privacy rights, the rights of Facebook users to be presented with content which isn’t highly manipulated, Facebook own terms of business and other legal rights, including intellectual property rights. Facebook then permanently deleted the fake Facebook Page.

0
0
0
s2smodern
Jurisdiction: United States remove review from GlassDoor legal advice

Pages removed from: GlassDoor.co.uk

Date of removal: 13 November 2017.

Number of reviews removed: 1

Additional information: This removal relates to a defamatory review posted on GlassDoor.co.uk by anonymous GlassDoor user. The GlassDoor review was false as it alleged that the company’s CEO was conducting himself in a manner which would put most employees off applying for jobs and which would result in suppliers and business associates wondering whether they should do business with the company at all. In this case we negotiated the removal of the review from GlassDoor after communicating with GlassDoor legal department. This resulted in a considerable sense if relief to our clients, both the company and the CEO and in the saving on great deal of money to them as on his occasion GlassDoor agreed to remove the review before we had to resort to litigation.

 

0
0
0
s2smodern
Jurisdiction: United Kingdom Found not guilty remove news article

Review removed from: Google search results

Date of removal: 4 September 2017

Number of pages removed: 5

Additional information: Our client was in the public eye when he faced a trial for serious allegations. He was found not guilty of all charges but the publicity around his trial kept causing him reputational damage and substantial distress, to him and to his family. After Google declined to de-list links to the news articles which contained information about the trial, our lawyers successfully appealed that decision to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) under the right to be forgotten to request that the ICO tells Google to de-list those articles in relation to our client's name. The ICO determined that our client’s right to private life outweighed the public interest in the matter and our client having been found not guilty by a court of law, had had a right to have the matter forgotten by the general public. The ICO ordered Google to de-list the links within 28 days.  

0
0
0
s2smodern
Jurisdiction: United States remove defamatory reviews Google dentist

Reviews removed from: Google Business listings

Date of removal: 15 June 2017

Number of reviews removed: 5

Additional information: Our client is a dental practice with several dental clinics across London. Over a brief period of time our client's Google listings of one of its dental practices has been subjected to 5 highly negative Google reviews. The dental practice was unable to trace any individuals with the names given by the Google uses who posted the online reviews so our lawyers obtained a court order, permitting Google to disclose to us information and data which Google had collected in relation to each of the Google users who posted a defamatory review about our client’s dental clinic. The disclosure from Google revealed that none of the Google reviewers were ever a patient of our client's dental clinic. This information helped us to facilitate the removal of the reviews from Google Maps (Business) listings in relation to our client's dental clinic. .   

0
0
0
s2smodern
Jurisdiction: United Kindgdom.Defamatory review dentists

Pages removed from: Yell.com

Date of removal: 17 May 2017

Number of defamatory reviews removed: 2 

Additional information: Our client owns a successful dental practice in London. The dental surgery was subjected to 2 fake online reviews on Yell.com causing it substantial reputational damage. Dentists and dental surgeries are particularly susceptible to fake online reviews. Having communicated with Yell.com the operators of the website agreed to have the defamatory reviews against the dental surgery removed from the internet..

  

0
0
0
s2smodern

Featured articles