Results
What a working engagement actually looks like.
We do not publish named case studies — client confidentiality comes first. What we can share are the patterns, timings, and typical outcomes across the matters we take on.
- Fully confidential
- Anonymised figures
- Nothing exaggerated
Aggregate figures
The numbers, plainly.
These are averages across matters we have reviewed and taken on. They are not projections for your case — every situation is different, and we will tell you which ranges apply to yours during the free review.
Illustrative scenarios
Four situations we see often.
These are illustrative — composite patterns drawn from our work, with no details that identify any individual. They exist to show you the shape of a matter, not to promise an outcome.
An old news story that keeps resurfacing
A years-old article about a settled dispute ranks second for a client's name. It is factually accurate but no longer representative, and it is costing the client new business.
Removal at source is refused. We shift approach: legal review of the article, a correction request, and suppression work to push it off page one.
A viral post on social media
An Instagram reel and a Facebook post, both making a false claim, circulating widely. One is on a public account, the other is in a large regional group.
Both qualify for removal under platform policy. We submit both reports, escalate to the trust & safety team, and monitor for mirror reposts on TikTok and X.
A complaint board thread that will not go away
An anonymous complaint against a business, sitting at the top of Google for the company's name. The board's policy makes removal unlikely without a court order.
Rather than escalate into litigation, we work on the search result itself — deindexing submissions on specific queries and structured suppression content to move the result below the fold.
Coordinated reputational attack
Multiple articles, a YouTube video, and several Reddit threads appearing within a short window. Clearly an organised campaign rather than organic criticism.
We triage by legal exposure and platform leverage, handle the removal-eligible content first, and coordinate with the client's counsel on the remainder. Reputation is stabilised before the search position is addressed.
What determines an outcome
Why two similar matters can end very differently.
Results are shaped by factors we can influence and factors we cannot. Knowing which is which is the whole point of the assessment.
The platform
Some platforms remove quickly on clear policy grounds. Others require court orders. A single matter can span both.
The publication
Established publishers with editorial standards respond differently from anonymous complaint boards. Removal timelines reflect that.
How the content ranks
A result already on page one is worth more effort than a buried one. Search position drives the strategy more than the content itself.
Legal grounds available
Defamation, false light, and right-to-be-forgotten routes exist in some jurisdictions and not others. Where they apply, they change the timeline.
Your willingness to escalate
Some matters resolve with a policy report. Others require legal escalation. Both are legitimate — but only one is fast.
Whether the content is mirrored
Removing one copy rarely solves the problem. We map the full footprint of the content before we begin work.
Begin
Want to know where your matter would sit?
Send us what's online. We'll tell you which route applies, what timeline to expect, and whether we can help at all.