What we refuse to do
The list we want you to hold us to
A written refusal is part of the product. So is this page. These rules apply to our code, our contracts and our internal tools, and they do not bend for a bigger customer.
Fake or purchased reviews, positive or negative
WhyBanned by the US FTC rule, by UK and EU law and by the platforms.
What we do insteadNothing in ReviShield writes a review. Fair Review Capture sends neutral requests to all your customers.
Mass flagging, repeat flagging, or several grounds per review to raise the odds
WhyPlatforms treat this as misuse. Under the EU Digital Services Act they must suspend frequent senders of manifestly unfounded notices.
What we do insteadOne person, one ground, one request per review, with limits per platform and per customer.
Fake accounts, bots, proxy pools, browser automation of platform forms, CAPTCHA solving
WhyIt breaks platform rules and turns a request into deception.
What we do insteadA named person files in the platform’s own tool. Our software has no submit function.
Forged or simulated legal documents, sham proceedings, false DMCA notices
WhyPeople have gone to prison for this.
What we do insteadLegal steps come only from a lawyer acting for you.
Contacting reviewers, or any payment, refund or benefit conditional on changing or deleting a review
WhyRegulators treat this as manipulation, and platforms ban it.
What we do insteadWe never contact reviewers. A complaint can be resolved, but never on condition that the review goes.
Removing genuine reviews
WhyA true review of a real experience is a customer’s to give. Selling its suppression can break consumer law, for example the UK’s DMCC Act.
What we do insteadA no-basis verdict closes the case. A recognised customer blocks the “no genuine experience” ground.
Guaranteed outcomes and unqualified success rates
WhyOnly the platform decides, so nobody can honestly promise a result.
What we do insteadResults appear with their denominator, including refusals, as soon as there is data.
Claims of inside access or partnership with a platform, and platform logos in advertising
WhyWe have no special access to any platform.
What we do insteadWe use the same public tools you can use, with more care and a better record.
Threats to restore content for non-payment
WhyIt is pressure on a customer, and it would be an abuse of the process.
What we do insteadWe commit to the opposite in the contract.
Unsolicited offers triggered by a recent bad review
WhyIt reads as extortion, because that is how extortion works.
What we do insteadOur outreach lists contain no review data. We never write to you because of a review.
AI-detector scores as a ground or as evidence
WhyWe found no platform or court that accepts them, and no reliable error data for short reviews.
What we do insteadThey help sort work internally and never enter a filing.
Deleting a whole profile as a “fix”
WhyIt costs you every good review and the listing with it.
What we do insteadWe work on individual reviews, and on how you respond to the rest.
Storing platform passwords, or identifying anonymous reviewers
WhyNeither is ours to hold or do.
What we do insteadManager access by invitation, with recorded consent. Identifying an author is for a lawyer, through a court.
And we refuse cases with no basis.
If a review is a fair account of a real experience, we say so, in writing, with the rule. You get a reply draft and steps to resolve the complaint. We lose nothing by telling you this, because the subscription pays for the assessment either way.
Where these rules come from
- Google: Maps user contributed content policy
- Google: report negative review extortion scams
- Trustpilot: Guidelines for Businesses, version 7.3
- Trustpilot: the action we take on misuse
- E. Volokh, UCLA: forged court documents used for takedowns
- US: 16 CFR 465.7, review suppression
- UK: Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, Schedule 20
- EU: Digital Services Act, Regulation 2022/2065
Sources checked on 6 November 2026.