Online Reputation Management for Public Figures

Only if you want them to. Every engagement is confidential from the first conversation, whether you reach out personally or through your team, and we never disclose a client relationship to anyone without explicit direction.

Yes. Coordinated attacks, a wave of similar negative reviews or comments posted in a short window, are documented as a pattern rather than handled one post at a time. Most platforms have specific policies against coordinated inauthentic behavior, and a pattern-based case is generally stronger than flagging each post individually.

In many cases, yes, especially if it contains factual inaccuracies, covers a matter that's since been resolved, or was published with clear malicious intent. When direct removal isn't realistic, we can suppress it by building authoritative, accurate content that outranks it in search results.

A PR firm focuses on messaging, media relationships, and public statements. We focus on the underlying content and search results themselves: getting damaging material removed or de-indexed at the source, and building the official site, verified profiles, and authoritative coverage that should own your first page. Many of our clients use both simultaneously, and we coordinate directly with existing PR and legal teams when needed.

Alongside. We work with your existing team and focus on the content and search results themselves. When you have a publicist, agency, or attorney involved, we coordinate directly with them so removal, messaging, and any legal action move together rather than at cross purposes, all under the same confidentiality. If you don't have a team yet, we can run the engagement on our own and bring in outside counsel only where a matter warrants it.

Defamatory false statements of fact, coordinated inauthentic campaigns and review-bombing, impersonation and fake accounts, harassment, and illegal or policy-violating content. Honest criticism and fair reporting are answered by building a stronger first page. During the free consultation we tell you which category a given post falls into before we touch anything.

Yes. Association-based coverage, where your name surfaces alongside another person's controversy, is one of the more common public-figure situations we handle. Where a piece makes a false statement of fact about you it can be pursued for removal on that basis, and where it's fair reporting that can't be removed, the build track puts accurate, authoritative content about you higher in results so a passing association doesn't define your first page.

Yes. The build track puts an official site, verified and active profiles, and earned interviews and features in place so the first page for your name is owned rather than left to whatever ranks by default. Where your public footprint supports it, we build the consistent, authoritative groundwork Google's Knowledge Graph draws on for a Knowledge Panel, and AI search tends to draw on the same entity facts. Creating a panel is 100% results-based: we do the work at our cost, and if your panel is not live, you do not pay.

Yes, when genuine notability exists. Wikipedia requires significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, and the legitimate path is transparent and goes through Wikipedia's own processes. If your coverage supports an article, creating a new Wikipedia page is 100% results-based: after a free notability assessment, if we take the case you pay only if the page is published. If it doesn't yet, we focus on what you can own: your official site, verified profiles, and the earned coverage that builds real notability over time.

Yes. Manipulated images and AI-generated deepfakes are removable under platform policies and, for intimate imagery, under the TAKE IT DOWN Act. We remove them at the source and de-index them from image search.

Removal carries no retainer and no upfront fee: you pay only after a specific piece of content is confirmed removed. Building, monitoring, and AI-answer work are different. They are scoped and quoted in writing before anything starts, and only if you choose them. Both depend on the scope and complexity of the case, which we walk through during your confidential case review.

Preserve the evidence before anything else: screenshots with dates, links, and account names, because posts get edited and deleted. Do not reply from the principal's own accounts until your publicist or counsel has weighed in, and report threats of violence to law enforcement. Then tell us it is active when you reach out, and we will prioritize it and start with the items that have the clearest policy grounds.

Yes, and many engagements start that way. We work for actors, musicians, athletes, creators, and executives through their representatives as often as directly. You can run the whole engagement: we assess the results, tell you what qualifies for removal and what will stay, file through each platform's official channel, and report to you. We stay in our lane, which is the content and the search results, and leave statements and legal strategy to you. Confidentiality covers the principal and your firm.

Often, at the source. Many profile sites and databases accept documented corrections, and Google has its own feedback process for a claimed Knowledge Panel. We prepare the correction with supporting sources and submit it through each site's own process, and we tell you which corrections are worth pursuing. This work is scoped in writing rather than billed on results.

A Knowledge Panel is the information box Google shows about a person or company. It is built from Google's Knowledge Graph, the database of entities and verified facts behind it, and AI search tends to draw on the same entity facts and trusted sources, so what the graph knows about you shapes what AI says about you. Google generates Knowledge Panels automatically from sources it trusts, and surfaces one for a name when there is a consistent, authoritative footprint behind it. We build that footprint (an official site, verified profiles, and credible coverage) and, once a panel exists, help you claim it and request corrections through Google's own process.

Treat threats as a law-enforcement matter first. On the content side, we document the posts and pursue removal under each platform's privacy and harassment policies, and we request removal of personal contact information from Google results through Google's own process.

Yes, through a separate request. The Internet Archive decides each removal request, and its process is documented on its help pages. We tell you which archived copies are worth pursuing, and removal work is billed only after it is confirmed.

This page is for public figures broadly, such as athletes, creators, authors, activists, and public-facing professionals. If you are an actor, musician, or other entertainer who wants both defense and brand building, our celebrity page is built around that. Candidates and elected officials face different constraints, so our politicians page covers them. The first step is the same on all three, a free, confidential assessment.

Platforms act on their own policy violations, such as harassment, impersonation, doxxing, and manipulated media. We document the posts against the specific policy they break and file through each platform's official channel. We tell you up front which posts have a strong case, and removal is billed only after it is confirmed.

AI assistants summarize what ranks and what looks authoritative, so they can repeat an old story or a false claim as fact. We audit what they say, then work on the sources they draw from, because correcting those sources is what changes the answers. This work is scoped in writing rather than billed on results.

We assess every result across search, news, social, images, and AI answers under strict confidentiality, then walk you through what can come down and what your first page is missing. You get a plan with scope agreed in writing. Removal is billed only after it is confirmed, and nothing starts until you say yes.