By:  Aaron Minc, Principal & Founder

In this comprehensive blog post and guide, we’re going to walk you through what a court ordered removal is, when you should seek a court ordered removal of online content and defamation, the background of court ordered removals and their power, today’s legal landscape in the United States surrounding court orders, and of course, how to secure an effective court ordered removal!

  1. To secure an effective court ordered removal of online content and defamation from Google, we recommend:
    • Narrowly defining the scope of the content to be removed – Google needs to be able to look at the court order and know exactly what the offending content in question is,
    • Providing proper notice to the malicious posters/defendants – Google wants to know that the defendant had time to object and that due process occurred,
    • Proving that the content in question is actually defamatory or illegal – It’s important to provided an accompanying explanation of the content so Google understands the material’s context.
    • Identifying the author of the content – The best practice is to get affidavits to prove that the person exists or subpoena evidence that you found the right person and that they received notice.
    • Making sure to seek permanent removal of the content and removal of subsequently posted content on other URLs.
  1. Court ordered removals are directions issued by a court or judge which require a party or website to do or not do something. Court ordered content removals are extremely effective tools that a large percentage of companies, websites, and search engines respect and enforce. Specifically, court orders should be sought when a victim of online defamation or other illegally posted content has NO other options, and:
    • Unable to remove the content themselves,
    • Unable to identify the malicious online poster/commenter,
    • When the website in question refuses to remove content, and
    • When the website or ISP in question won’t remove content without a court order.
  1. Removing online content by way of web domain control is a lesser known way to secure the removal of defamatory and illegal information/content from the Internet. For example, if the website where the defamatory or illegal content is posted is a dot com (.com), attorneys can seek a court order, ordering VeriSign (and other authoritative registries, including GoDaddy) to transfer the registrar and domain name to you/your client – ultimately granting you ownership. You then can remove the libelous and illegal content in question. Attorneys typically will employ this method in cases where a party has registered a website overseas.


Online Defamation Removal Tip: For victims of online defamation, extortion, blackmail, and cyberstalking, it’s extremely important to preserve and document all relevant evidence. Refrain from responding or reaching out to the perpetrator, and focus your energy on compiling evidence. We recommend screenshotting the offensive materials and having a trusted friend or family member assist in the process – doing so can help refute claims by the perpetrator that you’ve tampered with the evidence.

Have you been the victim of online defamation, extortion, blackmail, cyberstalking, or other forms of online harassment, and want to explore your legal options? Reach out to the Internet defamation attorneys of Minc Law today! At Minc Law, we know the ins and outs of United States Internet defamation law, so rest assured when working with us that you’re in good hands.

In our tenure as experienced online defamation removal attorneys, we’ve effectively secured the removal of over 25,000 pieces of content and websites, litigated in over 22 states and 3 countries, and boast a nearly 100% online defamation takedown and removal rate. And, we conduct certain removals all for a flat, reasonable fee.

What are you waiting for?

Reach out today to schedule your free, initial no-obligation consultation by calling us at (216) 373-7706, or by filling out our contact form online.


The online abuse and attacks stop NOW!


Background & Power of Court Ordered Removals

Background & Power of Court Ordered Removals

Securing an effective court ordered online content removal involves a lot more than just putting pen to paper and ticking the necessary boxes – there’s countless elements and nuances that exist at its very core and message. Understanding the general background and power of court ordered removals will ultimately enable you to better remove defamatory and libelous online content in extreme instances where a cease and desist, DMCA takedown, or other removal requests fail/are ignored.

Simply put, court ordered removals are a direction issued by a court or judge, which requires a person, website, or ISP to do, or refrain from doing, something. Court orders exist in countless forms, and are sometimes an absolute necessity for removing online defamation and libel. Court orders can be broken down into four fundamental types:

  • Stipulated: a court order where two parties consent,
  • Default: a court order issued where the opposing party “no shows,”
  • Dispositive Motions: court orders won off of dispositive motions (ex. Summary judgments, trial), and
  • Injunctions: court orders won by temporary and preliminary injunctions (for expedited relief).


So, what are the main reasons why we seek court ordered removals to take down online content, comments, and posts?

While most of the time, victims of online defamation and libelous posts (and their lawyers) can access a website and take down content relatively easily (or sue), this isn’t always the case. Additionally, user-generated content platforms and websites (UGCs), often enable users and posters to comment and post anonymously, so identifying a malicious poster/troll can be extremely difficult. This often results in an extremely complex process to identify a poster and ultimately remove the offensive material in question.

Court ordered online content removals are required when a person has no other options of removal. Specifically, they should be sought in the following instances:

  • When a defamation victim is unable to remove the content themselves,
  • When they are unable to identify the malicious poster/online troll,
  • When the website or ISP in question refuses to remove content (search engine de-indexing),
  • When the website or ISP in question explicitly refuses to remove content unless a court order is produced, and
  • To stop the continued publication or republication of unwanted content.


Court orders are extremely effective tools that a lot of companies, websites, and search engines voluntarily respect and follow – and most actually have a policy in place acknowledging their legitimacy.


The Power of Court Ordered Removals

As noted above, court ordered content removals are highly effective tools which are voluntarily respected and upheld by countless companies, websites, and search engines. They’re nearly recognized by everyone, as court orders are the final stamp of authority which recognizes the “actual evidence” of a specific online and legal violation.

An important question to ask yourself before seeking a court ordered removal is whether you’re seeking a court ordered removal just for the sake of getting one, or are you getting one with a deeper purpose in mind.

Always opt for the latter, as it will pay dividends in securing the effective removal of offensive and unwanted online content. Without a court order, it might otherwise be impossible to get relief for your client, as all parties (website, individual, etc…) might be protected under the infamous Communications Decency Act – a landmark piece of Internet legislation providing near-blanket immunity for websites and ISPs who provide platforms for third-parties to post content.

Now, let’s turn to the general legal landscape of court ordered removals in the United States.

U.S. Defamation Law Tip: The United States is actually considered a pro-defendant jurisdiction when it comes to online libel and defamation lawsuits, due to its history of enforcing free speech protections granted under the First Amendment. European countries and other Commonwealth jurisdictions (Canada, Australia, United Kingdom) however, are typically considered pro-plaintiff defamation jurisdictions.


Legal Landscape of Court Ordered Removals in the U.S.

Legal Landscape of Court Ordered Removals in the U.S.

Now, let’s dive into several cases which show just exactly how Google deals with valid court orders to gain a better understanding of the present day legal landscape you’ll need to navigate.


Google Suspends/Then Resumes Honoring Defamation Removal Requests

In 2016, a number of online defamation and libel removal attorneys noted that Google had suspended its long-standing and informal policy of removing URLs from search results (as directed by court order). These legal scholars and attorneys speculated that because most defamation removal requests originate from government agencies and law enforcement, the suspension was in furtherance of upholding basic free speech rights – and as a means to combat censorship.

Others speculated that the suspension was due to unethical attorneys and reputation agencies abusing the removal process. When prompted about the suspension, Google offered up this vague response, “At this time, Google has decided not to take action.”

However, in 2017, Google unexpectedly began to thaw on their cold stance towards defamation cases and removals.


Fundamental Takeaways From Google’s 2016/2017

Google’s legal landscape and honoring of court ordered removals leaves much to be desired. Specifically, there’s two notable takeaways we can extrapolate from the above cases about Google’s likelihood of removing content via court order.

First, the landscape is still quite confusing and uncertain regarding whether or not Google will actually remove online defamation and libel by way of court order.

Second, Google is highly subjective with their acceptance of court ordered removals, and looking for very specific, non-disclosed criteria.


The Unfortunate Case of Michael Arnstein & Forged Court Orders

After Michael Arnstein and his company were at the center of malicious online attacks and defamation by former website development providers based in India – where they sabotaged his ecommerce website, launched click-fraud attacks on numerous PPC campaigns, and attacked his/his company’s reputation via emails to customers and review websites – Arnstein fought back. However, it completely backfired…

Can you guess what happened after Arnstein attempted to fight back?

To combat the malicious and libelous reviews posted on review platforms and websites, Arnstein secured several court orders to remove specific defamatory URLs. Unfortunately, his scorned website development providers kept at it, consistently posting defamatory and libelous comments across new websites. Eventually, Arnstein ran out of money (as court orders can generate costly legal fees), and began copying/forging original court orders – adding new URLs to them in order to petition Google to remove them.

Note that Google does not act on new URLs without…more court orders.

As a result of Arnstein’s short term and illegal strategy to remove negative and false reviews about his business, he was sentenced to nine months in federal prison.


Key Takeaways From Arnstein’s Fight to Remove Libelous Reviews

In today’s online defamation and reputation landscape, reputation victims are “largely unprotected,” as there is constant “whack-a-mole” content popping up by the day. This makes combatting online defamatory and libelous reviews/posts extremely difficult. Furthermore, the costly legal fees associated with having to acquire new court orders for each defamatory material posted can put victims in tough financial situations.

Several legal analysts and defamation lawyers have proposed there should be an amendment (or two) to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, to ultimately close the hole in this broken system which enables reputation attack materials/content to live on indefinitely.


Ripoff Report Subverting Google Takedowns

Some websites are infamous for hosting damaging defamatory materials, along with changing URLs as soon as they detect Google has removed a page/listing from search results. Do note that Arnstein’s attempts at takedowns were also subverted via URL changes, indicating a popular way to elude Google’s page removal processes.

Essentially, the court ordered removal URLs containing negative and malicious content has become a game of cat and mouse. One much like Tom and Jerry, where the mouse (the websites with libelous content) always win, as they are always one step ahead of defamation victims.

Simply put, previously de-indexed Ripoff Report webpages are reappearing and ranking prominently again in Google due to the changing of very small components in a URL. Let’s take a look.

Below is the initial URL that a removal is procured for, followed by the slightly altered version:

Can you spot the difference?


In the amended URL, there is a lack of an “L” in the “SL” at the end of the URL slug.


Key Takeaways From Ripoff Report’s URL Altering Tactics

At present, there’s a serious flaw in Google’s page removal system, which enables savvy websites and platforms to skirt the removal of defamatory and malicious content altogether through the slightest of alterations to a URL. Since a URL is used as a page ID, webmasters ultimately have the ability to create a new ID for de-indexed pages, and are able to retain full SEO value.

Additionally, when advising your client on the securing of a court ordered removal, you must consider the possibility of republication, and address the limitations of court ordered relief. It’s also extremely important to include comprehensive language (to define the scope of the court order) to include republication issues.

Google will generally keep removing links again and again, however, it’s subject to their most recent policies regarding court orders.

Finally, if you’re unable to procure a full removal, do attempt for a redaction of personally identifiable information, as Ripoff Report and several other review/consumer advocacy websites have begun redacting personal information when confronted with a court order.

Libel Removal Tip: When approaching online defamation, it’s important to understand the differences between the two fundamental types of defamation; libel and slander. Slander refers to a false oral statement which is communicated to a third-party, while libel refers to a false written statement. Oftentimes, the general public confuses the two, especially when it comes to online videos and other media. Because videos are actually fixed in a tangible medium, they are considered libelous rather than slanderous.

Now that we’ve take you through three exemplary cases of today’s online legal landscape surrounding court ordered content and URL removals, let’s get into how to procure an effective and respected court order.


How to Secure an Effective & Respected Court Order

How to Secure an Effective & Respected Court Order

Before tackling the elements which enable the procuring of an effective and respected court ordered removal, it’s important to ask yourself whether you and your client really need a court order. It’s extremely important to have a strategic game-plan before filing a lawsuit, and properly define the purpose and reasons for seeking a court order.

Also, it’s important to reflect on whether a court order will actually help you attain what you hope to accomplish for your client. Some preliminary investigation is needed…Who are you sending the court order to? What are their policies? What’s the likelihood of success and it being respected?

In our tenure as nationally recognized online defamation removal lawyers, we’ve generally encountered five fundamental elements Google wants to see when removing online defamation and libel:

  • Defined scope of content,
  • Proper notice to the defendant(s),
  • The content is actually defamatory or illegal,
  • Identification of the author,
  • Miscellaneous Information.


Let’s get started with what you should take into consideration when defining the scope of the content to be removed.


Define the Scope of the Content to Be Removed

First and foremost, when securing an effective and well respected court ordered removal, it’s absolutely crucial to define the scope of the content very specifically (and narrowly). If you fail to sufficiently describe the content to be removed, you’re going to run into quite a few issues.

Imagine you’re Google. You want as specific of information as possible, so you can look at the order and know exactly what the offending content in question is. This includes specifying the URL where the defamatory and libelous content is, exact content in question, words, pictures, media, and more.

As we noted above, it’s also extremely important you provide for the potential republication of libelous and defamatory content. Ripoff Report was able to skirt the narrow protections granted by court orders, so anticipate that your defendant may act similarly. After all, it’s their business and primary means of making money.


Provide Proper Notice to Defendants

Ideally, defendants should be formally served and given notice of the lawsuit. Due process exists at the very heart of our legal system, so it’s important you do not tip the scales of equity too far to one side (from the beginning).

If the defendants in questions are never formally made aware of a requested removal and then receive a court order, it’s not going to be as effective as an order that was procured by following all requisite steps.

The default rule is that Google wants to know a defendant had sufficient time to object and that due process occurred.


Content Must Actually Be Defamatory or Illegal

Google wants to see that the content in question is actually defamatory or illegal. There have been so many frivolous takedown attempts over the years – especially from governments and third-party arbitration firms – that Google is quick to dismiss a removal attempt should the content fail to generate a real controversy or issue.

Furthermore, it’s your job to convince Google that the content is in fact defamatory or illegal. Google needs to believe it. The content/materials in question can’t blatantly NOT be defamatory. To help strengthen your removal case, we recommend providing an accompanying explanation as to why the content in question is defamatory or illegal, so Google properly understands the content’s context.

This also includes factual findings, so it’s clear on its face what is going on and what constitutes defamation.


Identification of the Author

Oftentimes, lawyers seeking court ordered removals fail to identify the actual author of the defamatory and illegal content in question. You absolutely need to make sure that the person being sued is the actual author of the content in question.

However, this can be quite difficult in John Doe actions.

All defamation and Internet attorneys need to conduct sufficient due diligence to identify a defendant and produce supporting documentation and proof.

The best practice is to get affidavits to prove that a person exists or subpoena evidence that you identified the right person and that they received notice.


Miscellaneous Information For Drafting Court Orders

Finally, there’s countless other considerations to take into account when seeking an effective court ordered removal. Let’s take a look at several of the most important.

  • Always make sure to reference that you are in fact authorized to act on behalf of the plaintiff (DMCA),
  • Always seek an order for PERMANENT removal of the content along with republication,
  • Conduct a search for duplicate URLs and content before seeking an order,
  • Strive for the removal of any subsequent content that is identical or may subsequently be posted on another URL,
  • Include a clause that easily allows modification and amendment,
  • Define the content removal from other websites as well.


One important note for global defamation takedowns is that Google only implements court orders on a country-by-country basis, not on a global scale – so if you think you are securing a content ordered removal for every language and country out there, you’d be wrong.

For example, if you’re dealing with a European client, a court ordered removal will be applicable to that specific European country, not every country across the world.

A 2014 Google case which appeared in Canadian courts affirmed such. Specifically, in 2014, a Google lawyer appeared in a British Columbia court armed with a California ruling stating that one country’s ruling on what the rest of the world sees ultimately “threatens free speech on the global internet.”

The suit was between two small companies, where one accused another of selling knockoff goods line. This resulted in injunction, ordering Google to de-list search results for the defendant’s company…globally. A British Columbia appeals court and the Supreme Court of Canada subsequently upheld the ruling.

Ultimately, Google did nothing with the ruling, and U.S. courts have refused to enforce it.

Online Defamation Takedown Tip: It’s important to familiarize yourself with your state’s respective defamation statute of limitations (SOL), the amount of time you have to bring your defamation claim, as slander and libel statutes of limitation can differ significantly. Generally, slander statute of limitations timeframes are shorter than libel SOLs due to the fleeting nature of the evidence (after all, it’s an oral statement).


Removing Content By Way of Web Domain Control

Verisign Logo

It’s actually possible to seek a court order to gain control of a web domain in order to remove content. If a website containing defamatory and illegal content is a dot com (.com), lawyers can go through VeriSign(the leader of domains and Internet security) to gain control of it.

VeriSign controls two of the thirteen Internet root nameservers, and effectively controls the domains which define our present day Internet. While VeriSign is the most well known organization controlling domains and Internet security, lawyers are able to exercise this right when dealing with any hosting provider (all domain host providers)!


So, when should I seek to remove illegal and defamatory content by way of web domain control?

The most common instance where a lawyer should seek to remove defamatory and illegal online content by way of web domain control is when the defendant party is located overseas.

For example, if a party registers a website in Iceland or Thailand, you might think your only option to remove content is to de-index it, right? Not so fast.

Simply put, you can seek a court order, ordering VeriSign (who is in control of nearly every single registrar in the world) to transfer the registrar and domain name. Doing so ultimately grants you ownership, and enables you to remove offensive, illegal, and defamatory content.

Note that GoDaddy can do this as well. However, GoDaddy will transfer the domain to your GoDaddy account (after all, you’re dealing with a lease here).

Let’s now turn to one of the most important legal cases involving the collection and control of domain holdings post-legal judgment.


DS LLC v. Zuccarini: Are Domains Tangible or Intangible Property?

The 2010 case of DS LLC v. Zuccarini arose after DS LLC, an assignee of a judgment against Zuccarini from Office Depot, sought to collect upon said judgment. DS LLC was assigned the judgment post-cybersquatting (with domain name ‘’), after Office Depot was unable to collect against Zuccarin, the judgment debtor.

Zuccarini owned the rights to hundreds of domain names at the time – 248 with VeriSign, 190 of which were ‘.com’ domain name, which DS sought to levy upon in the Northern District of California – where VeriSign’s headquarters is located.

The District Court appointed a receiver to take control of and auction off some of Zuccarini’s domain names to satisfy the judgment. However, this led to the discussion and analysis of two important questions.

  • Were the domain names property that’s subject to execution of a judgment?
  • And, if so, where are the domain names located for purposes of execution?


Note that the domain names which DS LLC sought to levy were not actually involved in the underlying litigation (merely fell under attachment jurisdiction).

DS LLC v. Zuccarini generated an important discussion concerning domain names in today’s legal landscape. Below are several key takeaways:

  • Domain names are considered intangible property under California law and subject to writs of execution,
  • Attaching a situs to intangible property is “legal fiction” and context-specific – meaning there should be common sense appraisal of requirements of justice and convenience,
  • Domain names shall be “deemed to have its situs in the judicial district in which the domain name registrar, domain name registry, or other domain name authority that registered or assigned the domain is located.”


Zuccarini argued that if the domains were in fact under VeriSign’s control and located in the district where the VeriSign HQ was, then every “.com” and “.net” domain would be considered located in that district. DS LLC on the other hand, argued that registrars are essentially intermediaries, and that the registry controls the database of all domain names, with ownership being reflected and vested in the registry.

Ultimately, the court held that domain names exist in the location of both the registrar and the registry. And, because VeriSign had its headquarters in the Northern District of California, the district court had quasi in rem jurisdiction over the domain names registered with VeriSign for purposes of appointing a receiver to assist in executing a judgment against owners of the domain names.

Let’s now turn to several relevant domain holdings.

  • Dorer v. Arel: This 1999 case dealt with garnishment actions on a domain, noting, “While domain names may be extremely valuable, that did not make them garnishable; that is, they were not convertible to the cash equivalent of their value in the open market.” Instead, in today’s modern statutory scheme where cybersquatting has been found, the matter should be settled by a mandatory injunction transferring the domain to the trademark owner.
  • Kremen v. Cohen: In 2003, a California court held that domain names are intangible property under California law and protected under California conversion law.
  • Sprinkler Warehouse v. Systematic Rain: This 2015 Minnesota case tackled garnishment actionsin the ‘North Star State’, holding that there are specific procedures for converting property to cash equivalents governed by state laws on garnishment. However, federal courts have been instrumental in characterizing domain names. The Court of Appeals ultimately found that domain names are considered property, and reversed the district court’s previous ruling.


Finally, let’s take a look at several other miscellaneous court order resources and examples. In Section 5, we will also walk you through how to begin the process of securing content removals from Google and Bing!

Defamation Law Fact: There’s certain types of statements which United States defamation and libel law considers so inherently defamatory (and inflammatory), that a plaintiff need not prove damage to their reputation – this is commonly referred to as defamation per se. Most states recognize the following four types of statements as ‘defamation per se’: (1) Statements charging the plaintiff with having committed a crime, (2) Statements imputing unchastity upon a person, (3) Statements imputing a loathsome disease on the plaintiff (typically a sexually transmitted disease), and (4) Statements which injure a person in the course of their business, work, or trade.


Miscellaneous Court Order Resources & Examples

Miscellaneous Court Order Resources & Examples

Let’s first start with two simple walkthroughs of how to report content to both Google and Bing after securing a court ordered removal via their content removal submission forms.


Google Content Removal Submission Form Walkthrough

Step 1: First, you will need to select “I have a legal issue that is not mentioned above.”

Step 2: Next, select “I have a court order declaring certain content unlawful.”

Step 3: You’ll then need to fill out your information, along with your client’s information and the content which you are seeking to remove.

When using Google’s content removal submission form, we recommend being as descriptive and meticulous as possible.


Bing Content Removal Submission Form Walkthrough

To preface, when seeking a content removal from Bing, it’s extremely important that you notify them that you’ve already contacted the website, showed them the order, and that the website has NOT acted!

Step 1: First, you will need to select, “I want to request the removal of something I saw on Bing.”

Step 2: Next, choose “I have a court order.”

Step 3: Then, “The court order is directed at someone else.”

Step 4: Finally, you will need to select, “Has the content already been removed from the hosting website?” and choose “No.”

Once again, make sure to enter your name and email address, along with the search terms used to find the URL in question.


Court Orders & the DMCA

If you’re seeking alternative methods to remove online content, DMCA takedowns are an option if there is copyrighted material/content at issue. Court orders can be used to authorize a takedown by DMCA.

Understand that you will need to include language in the order to authorize a party to request a removal on behalf of the defendant. Ultimately, this enables attorneys to submit a court order request for removal on behalf of the defendant.

To read up further on the DMCA, check out our comprehensive blog post here –


Revenge Porn & Google

Revenge porn, also known as nonconsensual pornography, has become extremely prevalent online over the years. And, due to its extremely invasive and illegal nature, as of 2015, Google has acknowledged that they will honor requests from persons to remove nude or sexually explicit images without their consent from the Google search results.

In fact, all search engines will honor requests from persons to remove nude or sexually explicit images posted without their consent.

When filing your revenge porn takedown with Google, make sure to include your; name, country, email, URL where the content is live, sample URL of the Google search results, and screenshots of the offending content. You can find the link to remove nonconsensual pornography over at

If you’re still unsure of how to navigate this highly nuanced legal landscape, reach out to us today for a free, initial no-obligation consultation. At Minc Law, we not only handle the removal of online defamation and libel, but revenge porn and other sexually explicit images. Get in touch with us today by calling us at (216) 373-7706, or by filling out our contact form online!

Online Brand Management Tip: If you run a company, business, or service with an online presence, we strongly recommend establishing an online brand and reputation monitoring budget. Doing so is an effective way to combat online libel as it occurs, gauge the general public’s perception of your product or service, and identify intellectual property infringers as they appear. It’s important to stay proactive when dealing with your online reputation and presence, as today’s technology has enabled the dissemination of information to reach persons not only in your country, but on the other side of the globe!


Work With Experienced Internet Defamation Lawyers to Secure a Court Ordered Removal Today!

If you’ve been the victim of online defamation, blackmail, extortion, sextortion, cyberstalking, or other online harassment, and want it removed, contact the nationally recognized Internet attorneys of Minc Law NOW!

At Minc Law, we know the ins and outs of U.S. defamation and Internet law, and have the results to prove it. In our tenure as experienced Internet attorneys, we’ve secured the effective removal of over 25,000 pieces of content and websites, litigated in over 22 states and 3 countries, and boast a nearly 100% online defamation and content removal rate. And, we do it all for a flat reasonable fee.

Curious as to what you can expect when working with the Cleveland-based defamation lawyers of Minc Law?

  • Utmost Respect & Courtesy: We know just how invasive online attacks and malicious Internet threats can be, so rest assured we’re here to make the removal/identification process as smooth as possible. We pride ourselves on treating all clients with the utmost respect and courtesy. After all, your goals are our goals, so let us help further them in the most effective way possible.
  • Open Lines of Communication & Dialogue: Some Internet defamation and content removal lawyers (and third-party arbitration firms) go missing once the takedown process has begun. Not us. At Minc Law, we’re here to keep you informed about all important details and updates surrounding your case and removal!
  • Proven Results: That’s right, we know the ins and outs of U.S. defamation law, and we have the results to prove it. As noted above, we’ve secured the seamless removal of over 25,000 pieces of libelous and defamatory content, and boast a nearly 100% defamation takedown rate. That’s because we’ve worked tirelessly with countless website administrators, online content managers, and third-party arbitration firms to build up an effective arsenal of legal tactics! Websites and businesses respond to Minc Law!


What are you waiting for? It’s time to take back your online narrative and reputation!

Contact us today to schedule your free, initial no-obligation Internet consultation by calling us at (216) 373-7706, or by scheduling a meeting online.


We’re here to fight for you!

Related Posts

About the author