Reputation agencies and companies. lawyers. If a particular URL removal was later found to be unwarranted due to a fraudulent court order, I would imagine Google would be willing to restore it. But I imagine the proper process would be for a site to send Google a request to restore the URL, rather than trying to manipulate and dodge Google's systems. Since Ripoff Report does not directly accept or reject my assertion that they changed URLs for this purpose, it is unclear how they determined when to use the change URL technique. Based on my
knowledge of the perfectly legitimate Revenge Porn Client case, it appears that Ripoff Report is not limiting these changes to cases in which the legal process has been abused. Ripoff Report's attorney then answered my question about why they are now linking jewelry retouching service to court order documents that reveal the identity of the authors of articles, when their express policy is not to disclose the names of the authors except as required by law. Their response was: “Among other things, Ripoff Report's promise to protect an author's anonymity is
intended to prevent companies from exposing the real names of people who post reviews about them. That hasn't changed. However, once a company, through an appropriate subpoena or otherwise obtains an author's name, Ripoff Report has nothing left to protect. In fact, if it's a court order, it's already part of a public record - the court record. Also, you assume that all court order documents actually name the actual perpetrator as a defendant. False court orders, or default orders from John