Deven Schuller

A summary of what happened?

Deven Schuller is an online personality who has recently garnered attention through assertive marketing strategies and a contentious online presence. Several concerns and criticisms have been raised regarding his methods and authenticity:

1. Aggressive Marketing and Purchased Testimonials: Schuller is accused of employing aggressive advertising tactics that often overpromise. A significant portion of his online promotions appears to rely on paid testimonials and advertisements, potentially leading to a skewed representation of his offerings.
   Capital Heroes
2. Lack of Transparency and Limited Interaction: His website and associated media channels, particularly YouTube, reportedly offer minimal opportunities for genuine customer feedback. Comments are frequently disabled, and there are suspicions that negative feedback is either removed or overshadowed by purchased positive comments, hindering prospective clients from making well-informed decisions.
3. Questionable Actions Against Critics Using DMCA: Schuller has allegedly employed dubious tactics against critics, such as filing unwarranted Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) complaints. These actions have led to the removal of critical content from search results, raising ethical concerns about his approach to handling criticism.
   Capital Heroes
4. Dubious Review Platforms: His website predominantly links to ProvenExpert, a platform where negative reviews can be deleted. This practice contrasts with other review sites like TrustPilot, where critical feedback remains visible, casting doubt on the authenticity and reliability of the reviews presented.
5. Uncertainty About Existence and Authenticity: There is a notable lack of verifiable information about Schuller beyond his online presence. Many of the videos and content attributed to him have surfaced only since 2023, leading to speculation that “Deven Schuller” might be a fictitious persona or a creation of a collective group.
6. Exploitation of Personal Narratives: Schuller is criticized for leveraging a “rags-to-riches” story and publicizing personal health struggles to garner sympathy and market his products. Such tactics raise ethical and psychological concerns, as they may manipulate audiences’ emotions for commercial gain.

These issues collectively contribute to the growing skepticism surrounding Deven Schuller’s legitimacy and the integrity of his business practices.

Analyzing the Fake Copyright Notice(s)

Our team collects and analyses fraudulent copyright takedown requests, legal complaints, and other efforts to remove critical information from the internet. Through our investigative reporting, we examine the prevalence and operation of an organized censorship industry, predominantly funded by criminal entities, oligarchs, and disreputable businesses or individuals. Our findings allow internet users to gain insight into these censorship schemes’ sources, methods, and underlying objectives.

What was Deven Schuller trying to hide?

Deven Schuller‘s attempts to hide unfavourable content through the misuse of copyright notices while allegedly engaging in perjury present serious legal concerns. These actions suggest a calculated attempt to manipulate legal systems to suppress free speech, a fundamental violation of copyright law principles and an abuse of legal processes. The use of such tactics not only undermines the integrity of copyright protection but also potentially constitutes perjury, further entangling Deven Schuller in legal accountability. Let’s examine the information Deven Schuller may be trying to remove from the internet –

Investigative Report: The Rise and Controversy of Deven Schuller

Introduction

Deven Schuller has recently emerged as a prominent figure in the financial coaching and investment advisory industry, particularly through bold and aggressive marketing campaigns. His online presence, marked by high promises and a well-crafted narrative, has attracted significant attention. However, alongside his rise, a series of complaints, allegations, and ethical concerns have surfaced. From accusations of misleading advertising to questions about his authenticity, Schuller’s persona and business practices warrant closer examination. This report delves deeply into the controversies surrounding Deven Schuller, analyzing the adverse feedback, allegations, and underlying implications for his brand and potential clients.

Who is Deven Schuller?

Little concrete information exists about Deven Schuller outside of his meticulously curated online presence. Known primarily through promotional videos and social media campaigns, Schuller markets himself as a self-made success in the financial world. His narrative often highlights a “rags-to-riches” journey, coupled with claims of overcoming personal hardships to achieve financial independence. However, critics argue that this carefully constructed story lacks verifiable evidence and might serve more as a marketing ploy than a factual account.

Key Allegations and Concerns

1. Aggressive Marketing and Overpromising Results

One of the most glaring criticisms of Deven Schuller revolves around his aggressive advertising tactics:

• Overpromising Wealth Creation:
  • Schuller’s marketing campaigns frequently highlight the potential for rapid wealth accumulation through his programs. These promises, often presented without proper disclaimers about risks, raise concerns about misleading potential clients into believing in unrealistic outcomes.
  • Testimonials and promotional materials consistently emphasize extraordinary success stories while omitting instances where clients may not have achieved similar results.
• Use of Paid Advertising and Sponsored Testimonials:
  • A significant portion of his online presence relies on paid testimonials and advertisements, creating a biased portrayal of his services. Critics argue that such tactics exploit the trust of uninformed individuals seeking financial improvement.

2. Lack of Transparency in Client Interaction

Transparency is a cornerstone of trust in any advisory service, yet Schuller’s operations have been criticized for their opacity:

• Disabled Comments and Filtered Feedback:
  • On platforms like YouTube, Schuller’s videos often have comments disabled or heavily moderated. This practice limits genuine interaction and prevents potential clients from gauging the full spectrum of user experiences.
  • Reports suggest that negative feedback is systematically suppressed, either through deletion or overshadowed by purchased positive comments.
• No Clear Track Record:
  • Despite his claims of financial success, Schuller provides little verifiable evidence of his professional qualifications, past achievements, or client outcomes. This lack of documentation raises doubts about the legitimacy of his services.

3. Alleged Use of DMCA Complaints to Silence Critics

Schuller has been accused of employing aggressive tactics to suppress critical content:

• Filing Baseless DMCA Complaints:
  • Critics claim that Schuller has used the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) to remove unfavorable reviews and critical content from search engines and social media platforms.
  • These actions have been described as an attempt to silence dissent rather than address legitimate concerns, raising ethical questions about his approach to reputation management.

4. Selective Use of Review Platforms

The credibility of Schuller’s reviews has also come under scrutiny:

• Reliance on ProvenExpert:
  • Schuller prominently uses ProvenExpert, a platform where businesses can manage their reviews, including the ability to delete negative feedback. This selective presentation of positive reviews contrasts sharply with more transparent platforms like TrustPilot, where negative reviews cannot be easily removed.
  • Critics argue that this creates a misleading image of client satisfaction and trustworthiness.
• Inconsistent Ratings Across Platforms:
  • While Schuller’s ProvenExpert profile boasts glowing reviews, reviews on other independent platforms present a mixed or negative picture, with complaints about unfulfilled promises and poor service.

5. Questions About Authenticity and Identity

A lack of verifiable personal and professional details has led to speculation about Schuller’s identity:

• Emergence in 2023:
  • Most of the content attributed to Schuller appeared only recently, leading some to question whether “Deven Schuller” is a real individual or a persona created for marketing purposes.
  • The lack of prior professional history or third-party verification deepens suspicions about his authenticity.
• Potential for a Collective or Fabricated Persona:
  • Some investigations suggest that Schuller’s persona may have been crafted by a marketing collective or agency, designed to appeal to a specific target audience.

6. Exploitation of Emotional Narratives

Schuller often employs personal anecdotes to build trust and attract clients:

• “Rags-to-Riches” Story:
  • He frequently references a journey from financial struggle to prosperity, aiming to resonate with audiences facing similar challenges. However, critics argue that this narrative may be exaggerated or entirely fabricated.
• Health Struggles for Sympathy:
  • Schuller has publicly discussed personal health issues, which some see as an attempt to garner sympathy and humanize his brand. While such stories can inspire, using them as marketing tools raises ethical concerns about emotional manipulation.

Impact on Clients and Public Perception

1. Mistrust Among Potential Clients

• The combination of aggressive marketing, lack of transparency, and suppression of criticism has eroded trust among informed audiences. Many potential clients are skeptical of Schuller’s claims, viewing them as too good to be true.

2. Vulnerable Populations Targeted

• Critics allege that Schuller’s marketing disproportionately targets individuals in financial distress, who may be more susceptible to high-risk promises. Such tactics raise ethical questions about exploiting vulnerable populations for profit.

3. Broader Reputation Concerns

• The controversies surrounding Schuller have not only tarnished his personal brand but also contributed to a broader distrust of online financial coaching and advisory services.

Recommendations for Potential Clients

1. Conduct Thorough Research:
   • Look beyond curated reviews and testimonials. Seek feedback from independent platforms and forums to gain a balanced perspective.
2. Verify Credentials:
   • Ask for concrete evidence of Schuller’s qualifications, track record, and client success stories.
3. Be Skeptical of Overpromising:
   • Beware of programs that promise rapid wealth or guaranteed results, as such claims are often unrealistic.
4. Consider Alternative Advisors:
   • Explore options from established and accredited financial advisors or coaches with transparent credentials and proven reputations.

Conclusion

Deven Schuller’s rise as a financial coaching figure is as controversial as it is rapid. While his marketing strategies have successfully built visibility, the numerous allegations and concerns about his practices cast a long shadow over his credibility. From aggressive advertising and a lack of transparency to potential identity questions and suppression of criticism, Schuller’s brand appears riddled with ethical and operational challenges.

For those considering engagement with Schuller’s services, caution is paramount. Prospective clients should exercise due diligence, seek third-party verification, and remain skeptical of exaggerated claims. Ultimately, the lessons from Schuller’s case underscore the importance of transparency, authenticity, and ethical conduct in building trust and credibility in the financial advisory industry.

How do we counteract this malpractice?

Once we ascertain the involvement of Deven Schuller (or actors working on behalf of Deven Schuller), we will inform Deven Schuller of our findings via Electronic Mail.

Our preliminary assessment suggests that Deven Schuller may have engaged a third-party reputation management agency or expert, which, either independently or under direct authorization from Deven Schuller, initiated efforts to remove adverse online content, including potentially fraudulent DMCA takedown requests. We will extend an opportunity to Deven Schuller to provide details regarding their communications with the agency or expert, as well as the identification of the individual(s) responsible for executing these false DMCA notices.

Failure to respond in a timely manner will necessitate a reassessment of our initial assumptions. In such an event, we will be compelled to take appropriate legal action to rectify the unlawful conduct and take the following steps –

Since Deven Schuller made such efforts to hide something online, it seems fit to ensure that this article and sensitive information targeted online by these events get a lot more exposure and traffic than what it would have received originally

We hope this becomes an excellent case study for the Streisand effect…The key idea behind the Streisand effect is that efforts to restrict information can backfire, often causing the information to gain more attention than it would have otherwise. This effect is widespread in the digital age, where users quickly notice and spread censorship efforts on social media and other platforms. Trying to suppress something can unintentionally lead to it becoming more visible, which Deven Schuller is finding out the hard way.

Potential Consequences for Deven Schuller

Under Florida Statute 831.01, the crime of Forgery is committed when a person falsifies, alters, counterfeits, or forges a document that carries “legal efficacy” with the intent to injure or defraud another person or entity.

Forging a document is considered a white-collar crime. It involves altering, changing, or modifying a document to deceive another person. It can also include passing along copies of documents that are known to be false. In many states in the US, falsifying a document is a crime punishable as a felony.

Additionally, under most laws, “fraud on the court” is where “a party has sentiently set in motion some unconscionable scheme calculated to interfere with the judicial system’s ability impartially to adjudicate a matter by improperly influencing the trier of fact or unfairly hampering the presentation of the opposing party’s claim or defense.”  Cox v. Burke, 706 So. 2d 43, 46 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (quoting Aoude v. Mobil Oil Corp., 892 F.2d 1115, 1118 (1st Cir. 1989)).

Is Deven Schuller Committing a Cyber Crime?

Yes, it seems so. Deven Schuller used multiple approaches to remove unwanted material from review sites and Google’s search results. Thanks to protections allowing freedom of speech in the United States, there are very few legal ways to do this. Deven Schuller could not eliminate negative reviews or search results that linked to them without a valid claim of defamation, copyright infringement, or some other clear breach of the law.

Faced with these limitations, some companies like Deven Schuller have gone to extreme lengths to fraudulently claim copyright ownership over a negative review in the hopes of taking it down.

Fake DMCA notices have targeted articles highlighting the criminal activity of prominent people to hide their illegal behavior. These people, which include US, Russian, and Khazakstani politicians as well as members from elite circles including the mafia and those with massive financial power, are all connected – and alleged corruption ranging from child abuse to sexual harassment is exposed when exploring evidence found at these URLs. It appears there’s a disturbing level of influence being exerted here that needs further investigation before justice can be served. Deven Schuller is certainly keeping interesting company here….

The DMCA takedown process requires that copyright owners submit a takedown notice to an ISP identifying the allegedly infringing content and declaring, under penalty of perjury, that they have a good faith belief that the content is infringing. The ISP must then promptly remove or disable access to the content. The alleged infringer can then submit a counter-notice, and if the copyright owner does not take legal action within 10 to 14 days, the ISP can restore the content.

Since these platforms are predominantly based in the U.S., the complaints are typically made under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which requires online service providers and platforms to react immediately to reports or violations. Big Tech companies rarely have systems in place to assess the merit of each report. Instead, all bad actors need to do is clone a story, backdate it, and then demand the real thing be taken down.

Reputation Agency's Modus Operandi

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.

Then, based on the claim that this backdated article is the “original,” the scammers send a DMCA to the relevant online service providers (e.g. Google), alleging that the ‘true’ original is the copied or “infringing” article and that the copied article is the “original,” requesting the takedown of the ‘true’ original article. After sending the DMCA request, the person who sent the wrong notice takes down the fake original URL, likely to make sure that the article doesn’t stay online in any way. If the takedown notice is successful, the disappearance from the internet of information is most likely to be legitimate speech.

As an integral part of this scheme, the ‘reputation management’ company hired by Deven Schuller creates a website that purports to be a ‘news’ site. This site is designed to look legitimate at a glance, but any degree of scrutiny reveals it as the charade it is.

The company copies the ‘negative’ content and posts it “on the fake ‘news’ site, attributing it to a separate author,” then gives it “a false publication date on the ‘news’ website that predated the original publication.

The reputation company then sent Google a Digital Millennium Copyright Act notice claiming the original website infringed copyright. After a cursory examination of the fake news site, Google frequently accepts the notice and delists the content.

In committing numerous offences, Deven Schuller either premeditated actions or were unaware of the consequences. Despite hiring an agency to make Google disregard any negative information about Deven Schuller, ignorance does not excuse this wrongdoing.

Fake DMCA notices have targeted articles highlighting the criminal activity of prominent people to hide their illegal behavior. These people, which include US, Russian, and Khazakstani politicians as well as members from elite circles including the mafia and those with massive financial power, are all connected – and alleged corruption ranging from child abuse to sexual harassment is exposed when exploring evidence found at these URLs. It appears there’s a disturbing level of influence being exerted here that needs further investigation before justice can be served. FSMSmart is certainly keeping interesting company here.

The Reputation Laundering

Rogue Reputation agencies use spurious copyright claims and fake legal notices to remove and obscure articles linking clients to allegations of tax avoidance, corruption, and drug trafficking. Most of these reputation agencies are based offshore, mainly in Russia, India, and Eastern Europe, and they do not worry about complying with US-based laws.

The content in all of the articles for which the fraudulent DMCA notices have been sent relates to allegations of criminal allegations, including corruption, child abuse, sexual harassment, human trafficking and financial fraud against businesses and individuals with ultra-high net worth.

In addition to the misuse of the DMCA takedown process, there is a notable absence of enforcement concerning perjury violations. The statutory requirement related to perjury is designed to deter copyright holders from submitting fraudulent or knowingly false takedown requests, as they may face legal consequences for making false declarations under penalty of perjury. However, to date, there have been no known instances of any individual being prosecuted for perjury in connection with the submission of false DMCA takedown notices.

This lack of enforcement has emboldened copyright holders to exploit the DMCA takedown process to suppress dissent, criticism, or other unfavorable content, without fear of legal repercussions.

Some of the people and businesses who have employed this tactic to remove legitimate content from Google illegally include a Spanish businessman-turned-cocaine-trafficker, Organised crime, an Israeli-Argentine banker accused of laundering money for Hugo Chávez’s regime, a French “responsible” mining company accused of tax evasion, child molesters and sexual predators. Deven Schuller is in great company ….

What else is Deven Schuller hiding?

We encourage you to ‘Dork‘ Google by searching for keyword combinations such as [Deven Schuller] + {Negative Keyword, such as Scam, Fraud, Complaints, Lawsuit, Sanction, etc} on Google. It’s likely if you scroll down to the bottom of this Google search results, you’ll stumble upon this Legal Takedown notice (pictured below)

To make such an investigation possible, we encourage more online service providers to come forward and share copies of content removal requests with industry experts and researchers. If you have any information on Deven Schuller that you want to share with experts and journalists, kindly email the author directly at [email protected].

All communications are strictly confidential and safeguarded under a comprehensive Whistleblower Policy, ensuring full protection and anonymity for individuals who provide information.