We have a strict policy of not removing complaints. Instead, they will be kept on file and permanently archived. Our policy of permanently archiving complaints rather than removing them has faced criticism as being unfair. However, we believe it is necessary, fair, and the best option. With over 100 daily complaints posted by multiple users on our website, verifying their credibility and truthfulness is not feasible for us. For Example - Google's algorithm checks for spam, but not the accuracy of reviews on Google Business. Negative reviews stay on the site forever. In the same way we don't enforce or take sides. The information is just for people to be aware of and stays on our website which is a public forum.
Posting a complaint on our website makes it visible, not just stored in a database only a few can see. Reporting scams helps raise awareness of dishonest people, businesses, and fraudulent acts. Taking down complaints due to threats makes people vulnerable to harm in the future.
If you believe a complaint is unjust or false or incorrect, you can provide your feedback to the complaint to correct any false or misleading information for readers. If the response to the complaint doesn't meet your expectations, you can use our DRS Program to have the complaint removed from search engines and but still it will exist on our website for public record. If you think it's not fair or doesn't make sense, remember that if someone lies and makes false complaints at the police station, you can prove you're right and win the case. The judge will say you were right and the person who accused you was wrong. But, even if you win, the police will not erase the records of the case.
Section 230 protects internet companies from being sued over things that other people post using their service. So, if someone writes a fake review about your business on Google and it hurts your reputation, you usually can't sue Google for it. This is because of the protection they have under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Same way we cannot be held liable for the content posted by the users.
To keep it short, Section 230 aims to give internet and tech companies the freedom to grow without worrying about being sued for things posted by users on their websites.
FAQ's
Authors must read and agree to our below TOS at the end of the form every time a complaint is submitted to us.
- I declare that the details and information in the complaint form are accurate and truthful.
- I am aware that submitted information through this form cannot be deleted or edited and remains permanently on our website
By accepting the above TOS, they acknowledge that the complaint is not false and deletion is subject to the discretion of our website.
We allow Businesses or Individuals to give their feedback or comment under the complaint. If unsatisfied, the complaint can be disputed through our DRS program.
Trademark law is a complex and highly specialized field that is determined by case scenarios and usage. To keep it simple, the utilization of a trademarked name or title within a complaint does not constitute a violation of trademark law, as such law only applies when the offending party is deemed to be a competitor. In circumstances where the alleged offender is not a competitor, the utilization of the trademarked name or title to express derogatory statements is generally not a breach of trademark law.
The identity of the author is kept confidential unless a formal request is made by law enforcement agencies in relation to a serious crime. The mere assertion of falsity or inaccuracy in a report does not entitle one to obtain the author's identity. The author may have chosen to remain anonymous to protect themselves from retaliation, and as such, disclosure of their identity is not required during the DRS process. However, the author may voluntarily choose to reveal their identity during the DRS procedure.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Communications Decency Act, Reporting Scams is not responsible for the veracity of statements made by users of the site. As such, demands for the removal of reports shall not give rise to any obligation for removal.