--- title: "What ReviShield refuses to do, and why" description: "The methods we will not use at any price: fake reviews, mass flagging, bots, forged documents, pressure on reviewers and guaranteed outcomes, with the reasons." url: https://revishield.com/what-we-refuse updated: 2026-11-06 --- 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. We refuse Why What we do instead Fake or purchased reviews, positive or negative Why Banned by the US FTC rule, by UK and EU law and by the platforms. What we do instead Nothing 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 Why Platforms treat this as misuse. Under the EU Digital Services Act they must suspend frequent senders of manifestly unfounded notices. What we do instead One 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 Why It breaks platform rules and turns a request into deception. What we do instead A 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 Why People have gone to prison for this. What we do instead Legal steps come only from a lawyer acting for you. Contacting reviewers, or any payment, refund or benefit conditional on changing or deleting a review Why Regulators treat this as manipulation, and platforms ban it. What we do instead We never contact reviewers. A complaint can be resolved, but never on condition that the review goes. Removing genuine reviews Why A 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 instead A no-basis verdict closes the case. A recognised customer blocks the “no genuine experience” ground. Guaranteed outcomes and unqualified success rates Why Only the platform decides, so nobody can honestly promise a result. What we do instead Results 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 Why We have no special access to any platform. What we do instead We use the same public tools you can use, with more care and a better record. Threats to restore content for non-payment Why It is pressure on a customer, and it would be an abuse of the process. What we do instead We commit to the opposite in the contract. Unsolicited offers triggered by a recent bad review Why It reads as extortion, because that is how extortion works. What we do instead Our outreach lists contain no review data. We never write to you because of a review. AI-detector scores as a ground or as evidence Why We found no platform or court that accepts them, and no reliable error data for short reviews. What we do instead They help sort work internally and never enter a filing. Deleting a whole profile as a “fix” Why It costs you every good review and the listing with it. What we do instead We work on individual reviews, and on how you respond to the rest. Storing platform passwords, or identifying anonymous reviewers Why Neither is ours to hold or do. What we do instead Manager 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](https://support.google.com/contributionpolicy/answer/7400114?hl=en) - [Google: report negative review extortion scams](https://support.google.com/business/answer/16404809?hl=en) - [Trustpilot: Guidelines for Businesses, version 7.3](https://corporate.trustpilot.com/legal/for-businesses/guidelines-for-businesses) - [Trustpilot: the action we take on misuse](https://corporate.trustpilot.com/legal/for-everyone/action-we-take) - [E. Volokh, UCLA: forged court documents used for takedowns](https://www2.law.ucla.edu/Volokh/shenanigans.pdf) - [US: 16 CFR 465.7, review suppression](https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/16/465.7) - [UK: Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, Schedule 20](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2024/13/schedule/20) - [EU: Digital Services Act, Regulation 2022/2065](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2022/2065/oj) Sources checked on 6 November 2026.