y agreed to remove most of the specified content. Posts that Google agreed to remove from its results included posts on Ripoff Report, Pissed Consumer, and USAComplaints.com. Confusion makes decision making in such cases very difficult For victims of defamation Shadow Making and the lawyers who represent them, this situation continues to be confusing and upsetting. Without some consistency, it is quite difficult to determine whether it will be desirable to initiate Shadow Making expensive legal proceedings. Imagine someone has anonymously vilified you or your online business with tens, hundreds, or even thousands of posts that misrepresent you.

The legal process to handle the issue is as follows: You Shadow Making must go to court to get a subpoena to get information from the publisher. This information may not identify the person making the post, so you may need to go back to court to get a subpoena for the ISP that manages the IP address associated with the content creator. You discover the person associated Shadow Making with the IP address and then take them to court to establish that they have wronged you with false statements. Once you get an injunction to stop them from continuing to defame you, and a court order that the things they posted were false and defamatory, you pass it on to websites and Google and ask them to remove these elements.

Some websites are outside the jurisdiction of the United Shadow Making States and simply ignore you. Other sites, like Ripoff Report, choose to do nothing because US law does not require it. And Google can decide whether or not to remove the URLs. You may Shadow Making have spent tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of dollars for relief at this point, only to be declined by Google without receiving any explanation. As I explained in the previous article, it can be seen why.