FarNorthReview

A summary of what happened?

FarNorthReview, a computer software company based in Irvine, California, has been the subject of numerous customer complaints, as documented by the Better Business Bureau (BBB). These grievances primarily focus on issues related to service quality, billing practices, and customer support.

Key Concerns and Complaints:

1. Service Quality and Contractual Issues:
   • Customers have reported that FarNorthReview’s services did not meet expectations, with some alleging that the company failed to deliver promised outcomes.
   • There are instances where clients believed they had canceled services, yet continued to be billed, indicating potential mismanagement of account cancellations.
2. Billing Practices:
   • Several complaints highlight unauthorized charges following cancellation requests, suggesting lapses in the company’s billing system.
   • Customers expressed frustration over being charged for services they attempted to discontinue, leading to financial disputes.
3. Customer Support Challenges:
   • Clients have described difficulties in reaching satisfactory resolutions through FarNorthReview’s customer support channels.
   • Some customers felt their concerns were not adequately addressed, exacerbating dissatisfaction.

Company’s Response:

In response to these complaints, FarNorthReview has acknowledged certain errors, particularly in marketing communications, and has expressed a commitment to resolving issues. The company has apologized for mistakes and emphasized efforts to address customer concerns promptly.

BBB Profile Summary:

• Rating: FarNorthReview holds an ‘F’ rating from the BBB, indicating significant concerns regarding its business practices.
• Complaint History: Over the past three years, 71 complaints have been filed against the company, with 35 of these closed in the last 12 months.

The volume and nature of complaints against FarNorthReview suggest systemic issues in service delivery, billing accuracy, and customer support. Potential customers are advised to exercise caution and conduct thorough due diligence before engaging with the company. It is crucial for businesses to uphold transparent practices and prioritize customer satisfaction to maintain trust and credibility.

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 FarNorthReview trying to hide?

FarNorthReview‘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 FarNorthReview in legal accountability. Let’s examine the information FarNorthReview may be trying to remove from the internet –

Investigative Report: FarNorthReview – Complaints, Allegations, and Business Practices

FarNorthReview, a computer software company based in Irvine, California, has become the focus of customer dissatisfaction and scrutiny over the past few years. A considerable number of complaints filed with the Better Business Bureau (BBB) highlight systemic issues with service quality, billing practices, and customer support. This report delves into the company’s operations, the nature of the complaints, and its attempts at resolution, while examining its broader impact on customers and business reputation.

1. Overview of FarNorthReview

A. Company Profile

• FarNorthReview is a technology company providing software solutions and services.
• Its offerings are marketed as tools to optimize business operations, yet its practices have increasingly come under fire.

B. Business Model

• The company primarily serves businesses seeking software solutions for process efficiency.
• FarNorthReview’s service agreements often involve recurring subscriptions, which have been a significant source of contention.

2. Major Complaints and Allegations

A. Service Quality Issues

1. Failure to Deliver Promised Services:
   • Customers have repeatedly claimed that the services provided by FarNorthReview did not meet expectations or deliver the outcomes advertised.
   • Many customers reported technical issues, lack of promised updates, or subpar performance of software tools.
2. Misleading Marketing:
   • Some complaints suggest that FarNorthReview’s marketing materials exaggerated the effectiveness of its services, creating unrealistic expectations.
   • Clients often felt misled by the company’s claims about the capabilities of its software products.

B. Billing and Contractual Disputes

1. Unauthorized Charges:
   • A significant number of complaints revolve around unauthorized charges, with customers reporting being billed after they had canceled their subscriptions.
   • Instances include repeated billing despite documented cancellation requests.
2. Difficulty in Canceling Services:
   • Customers alleged that the cancellation process was unclear, with some claiming they had to make multiple attempts to terminate services.
   • Reports describe frustration over persistent charges even after clients believed their accounts were closed.
3. Lack of Transparency:
   • Billing structures, renewal terms, and cancellation policies were reportedly unclear, leaving customers unaware of their obligations.
   • Many clients expressed dissatisfaction with the perceived lack of upfront communication about fees and renewal terms.

C. Customer Support Challenges

1. Unresponsive Support Teams:
   • Complaints frequently mention difficulties in reaching customer service representatives or receiving timely responses.
   • Some customers claimed their issues went unresolved despite repeated attempts to contact the company.
2. Inadequate Resolutions:
   • When customers managed to reach support, many reported receiving unhelpful or generic responses that failed to address the core issues.
   • This lack of effective resolution exacerbated customer dissatisfaction and led to escalating disputes.

3. Patterns in Customer Feedback

A. BBB Complaints

• Volume of Complaints:
  • Over 71 complaints were filed with the BBB in the past three years, with 35 complaints closed in the last 12 months alone.
  • The high volume of complaints indicates widespread dissatisfaction and systemic problems.
• Resolution Efforts:
  • FarNorthReview has responded to some complaints, admitting to errors and offering partial resolutions, but the consistency and effectiveness of these efforts remain questionable.

B. Common Themes in Negative Reviews

1. Recurring Issues with Billing:
   • Customers consistently mention being charged for services they believed were canceled.
   • Billing disputes form the majority of grievances, with many clients expressing concern over potential predatory practices.
2. Perceived Dishonesty:
   • Many clients feel that FarNorthReview has not been forthcoming about its policies or responsive to their concerns, leading to distrust in the company.
3. Emotional and Financial Impact:
   • Frustration over prolonged disputes and financial loss due to unauthorized charges has caused significant distress for many customers.

4. Company’s Responses and Attempts at Resolution

A. Acknowledgment of Errors

• FarNorthReview has acknowledged some errors in its billing and customer service processes.
• The company has issued public apologies in certain cases, attributing problems to technical or administrative oversights.

B. Efforts to Address Complaints

1. Partial Refunds:
   • In some cases, the company offered partial refunds or service credits as a goodwill gesture.
2. Policy Adjustments:
   • FarNorthReview claims to have revised some internal processes to improve transparency and customer experience, though customer feedback suggests these efforts have been insufficient.

C. Persistent Issues

• Despite these efforts, the recurrence of similar complaints indicates that deeper systemic issues remain unresolved.

5. Business and Legal Implications

A. Reputation Impact

• The volume and nature of complaints have severely damaged FarNorthReview’s reputation:
  • The company holds an F rating from the BBB, the lowest possible grade.
  • Negative reviews dominate online forums, discouraging potential clients from engaging with the company.

B. Potential for Legal Action

• The persistent nature of billing disputes and unauthorized charges could expose FarNorthReview to legal challenges from disgruntled clients or regulatory authorities.

C. Regulatory Oversight

• The company may face scrutiny from consumer protection agencies if allegations of deceptive practices and unfair billing are substantiated.

6. Recommendations for Consumers

A. Exercise Caution

1. Read Terms Thoroughly:
   • Prospective clients should carefully review service agreements, billing structures, and cancellation policies before engaging with FarNorthReview.
2. Document Interactions:
   • Clients are advised to keep detailed records of communications with the company, particularly regarding cancellations and billing disputes.

B. Consider Alternative Providers

• Given the concerns surrounding FarNorthReview, consumers may want to explore alternative software providers with stronger reputations and positive client feedback.

C. Leverage Consumer Protection Channels

• Clients facing unresolved disputes can escalate their concerns to the BBB, consumer protection agencies, or legal counsel if necessary.

7. Conclusion

FarNorthReview’s operational practices, particularly concerning billing disputes and customer service issues, have attracted significant criticism and damaged its reputation. While the company has taken steps to address complaints, recurring patterns of dissatisfaction suggest systemic issues that remain unresolved.

Key Takeaways:

1. Recurring Complaints: Common grievances include unauthorized charges, difficulties in canceling services, and unresponsive customer support.
2. Regulatory Concerns: The volume and nature of complaints could attract scrutiny from consumer protection agencies.
3. Reputation Damage: An F rating from the BBB and widespread negative reviews highlight the company’s ongoing struggles to meet customer expectations.

Final Word:

Consumers are advised to approach FarNorthReview with caution, prioritize due diligence, and consider alternative providers with stronger reputations for transparency and service quality. For FarNorthReview to rebuild trust, substantial reforms in its business practices and customer engagement strategies are essential.

How do we counteract this malpractice?

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

Our preliminary assessment suggests that FarNorthReview may have engaged a third-party reputation management agency or expert, which, either independently or under direct authorization from FarNorthReview, initiated efforts to remove adverse online content, including potentially fraudulent DMCA takedown requests. We will extend an opportunity to FarNorthReview 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 FarNorthReview 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 FarNorthReview is finding out the hard way.

Potential Consequences for FarNorthReview

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 FarNorthReview Committing a Cyber Crime?

Yes, it seems so. FarNorthReview 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. FarNorthReview 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 FarNorthReview 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. FarNorthReview 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 FarNorthReview 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, FarNorthReview either premeditated actions or were unaware of the consequences. Despite hiring an agency to make Google disregard any negative information about FarNorthReview, 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. FarNorthReview is in great company ….

What else is FarNorthReview hiding?

We encourage you to ‘Dork‘ Google by searching for keyword combinations such as [FarNorthReview] + {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 FarNorthReview 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.