What We Are Investigating?
Our firm is launching a comprehensive investigation into BrokersView over allegations that it has been suppressing critical reviews and unfavorable Google search results by fraudulently misusing DMCA takedown notices. These actions, if proven, could constitute serious legal violations—including impersonation, fraud, and perjury.
We conducted comprehensive analyses of fraudulent copyright takedown requests, meritless legal complaints, and other unlawful efforts to suppress public access to critical information. Our reporting sheds light on the prevalence and modus operandi of a structured censorship network, often funded and used by criminal enterprises, oligarchs and criminal entities seeking to manipulate public perception and bypass AML checks conducted by financial organisations.
The fake DMCA notices in this investigation appears to have been strategically deployed to remove negative content from Google search results illegally. Based on this pattern, we have reasonable grounds to infer that BrokersView - or an entity acting at its behest - is directly or indirectly complicit in this cyber crime.
In most such cases, such ops are executed by rogue, fly-by-night 'Online Reputation Management' agencies acting on behalf of their clients. If evidence establishes that the subject knowingly benefited from or facilitated this scam, it may be deemed an 'accomplice' or an 'accessory' to the crime.
What are they trying to censor
BrokersView, a platform offering brokerage-related services, has faced several allegations and red flags that have raised concerns about its credibility and operational integrity. While the company has positioned itself as a reliable resource for traders and investors, a closer examination reveals a series of adverse reports and controversies that could significantly harm its reputation.
Major Allegations and Red Flags:
- Misleading Advertising and Promises: BrokersView has been accused of exaggerating the capabilities of its platform, particularly in terms of broker comparisons and trading tools. Critics argue that the platform often promotes brokers without sufficient due diligence, potentially exposing users to high-risk or unregulated entities. Some users have reported that the platform’s reviews and rankings appear biased, possibly influenced by undisclosed financial arrangements with brokers.
- Data Privacy Concerns: There have been allegations that BrokersView collects and shares user data with third parties without explicit consent. This raises significant privacy concerns, especially given the sensitive nature of financial information.
- Association with Questionable Brokers: BrokersView has been linked to several brokers with poor regulatory records or histories of client complaints. This association has led to accusations that the platform prioritizes profit over user safety.
- Lack of Transparency: The company has been criticized for its opaque business practices, including unclear fee structures and undisclosed partnerships. This lack of transparency undermines trust in the platform.
- Adverse Media Coverage: Several investigative reports and user testimonials have highlighted instances of misleading information, poor customer service, and unresolved disputes involving BrokersView. These stories have been widely circulated in financial forums and media outlets, further damaging the platform’s reputation.
Reputational Harm and Motivation for Removal:
The allegations and adverse news stories pose a significant threat to BrokersView’s reputation. In the highly competitive and trust-driven financial services industry, even a single negative story can deter potential users and erode existing client trust. The platform’s association with questionable brokers and data privacy concerns, in particular, could lead to regulatory scrutiny and legal challenges.
Given the potential financial and reputational fallout, BrokersView may feel compelled to suppress or remove damaging information. This could include negative reviews, investigative reports, or user complaints. In extreme cases, the company might resort to unethical or illegal measures, such as hacking or cyberattacks, to silence critics or remove unfavorable content from the internet. Such actions, while criminal, could be seen as a desperate attempt to protect its brand and maintain its market position.
Conclusion:
BrokersView’s alleged misconduct and the resulting adverse publicity highlight the importance of transparency and accountability in the financial services sector. While the platform may seek to control its narrative, any attempt to suppress information through illegal means would only exacerbate its troubles, leading to further legal and reputational consequences. For users, these red flags serve as a reminder to exercise caution and conduct independent research before relying on such platforms.
- https://lumendatabase.org/notices/44519514
- Aug 20, 2024
- OptiNexus Innovations
- https://www.facebook.com/BrokersView/
- https://www.sitejabber.com/reviews/brokersview.com
Evidence Box
Evidence and relevant screenshots related to our investigation
Targeted Content and Red Flags
About the Author
The author is affiliated with TU Dresden and analyzes public databases such as Lumen Database and
FakeDMCA.com to identify and expose online censorship. In his personal capacity, he and his
team have been actively investigating and reporting on organized crime related
to fraudulent copyright takedown schemes.
Additionally, his team provides
advisory services to major law firms and is frequently consulted on matters
pertaining to intellectual property law.
He can be reached at [email protected] directly.
Escalate This Case
Learn All About Fake Copyright Takedown Scam
Or go directly to the feedback section and share your thoughts
How This Was Done
The fake DMCA notices we found always use the 'back-dated article' technique. With this technique, the wrongful notice sender (or copier) creates a copy of a 'true original' article and back-dates it, creating a 'fake original' article (a copy of the true original) that, at first glance, appears to have been published before the true original
What Happens Next?
Based on the feedback, information, and requests received from all relevant parties, our team will formally notify the affected party of the alleged infringement. Following a thorough review, we will submit a counter-notice to reinstate any link that has been removed by Google, in accordance with applicable legal provisions. Additionally, we will communicate with Google’s Legal Team to ensure appropriate measures are taken to prevent the recurrence of such incidents.
You are Never Alone in Your Fight.
Generate public support against the ones who wronged you!
Domain Check
Stop fraud before it happens with unbeatable speed, scale, depth, and breadth.
Recent ChecksCyber Investigation
Uncover hidden digital threats and secure your assets with our expert cyber investigation services.
Recent InvestigationOur Community
Your trusted source for breaking news and insights on cybercrime and digital security trends.
Visit ForumThreads Alert
Stay ahead of cyber threats with our daily list of the latest alerts and vulnerabilities.
Threads Alert
Recent Investigations
Aaron Sansoni Group
Investigation Ongoing
DX Exchange
Investigation Ongoing
Finxflo
Investigation Ongoing
Average Ratings
1
Based on 3 ratings
by: Olivia Brown
They pretend to be an independent review site, but in reality, they push whatever broker pays them the most. And if someone exposes them, they file fake copyright claims to make it disappear. That’s not just dishonest, that’s criminal
by: Isabella Clark
This is why the trading industry is full of scams—because platforms like this manipulate information to protect the fraudsters
by: William Wilson
I regret ever trusting their rankings. Now I see why so many users got scammed after following their stupid 'recommendations