Getdandy

A summary of what happened?

GetDandy, operating under Dandy Inc., is a reputation management company that claims to specialize in removing negative online reviews and enhancing business reputations through automated technologies. Despite its marketed services, the company has been subject to multiple complaints and allegations concerning its business practices, legitimacy, and ethical standards.

1. Allegations of Unsolicited and Deceptive Marketing Practices

• Unsolicited Communications: Businesses have reported receiving unsolicited emails and text messages from GetDandy, offering services to remove negative reviews. For instance, a complaint filed with the Better Business Bureau (BBB) in March 2022 detailed that Dandy Inc. contacted a business multiple times following a 1-star Google review left by an individual named Kimberly Carr. The business noted that Kimberly Carr was never a customer and suspected that the negative review was part of a marketing scam to solicit their services.
  Better Business Bureau
• Questionable Review Removal Claims: GetDandy promises to remove “fake” reviews from platforms like Google and Yelp for a fee. However, it’s important to note that only business owners can request the removal of reviews on these platforms, raising questions about the legitimacy and effectiveness of GetDandy’s services.
  Better Business Bureau

2. Lack of Transparency and Registration Issues

• Unregistered Business Operations: Investigations have revealed that Dandy Inc. is not a registered business in California, where it claims to operate. This lack of official registration raises concerns about the company’s legitimacy and adherence to business regulations.
  Better Business Bureau
• Use of Multiple Aliases: GetDandy has been reported to operate under different names, such as Reviewvio, which has also received complaints regarding similar business practices. This use of multiple aliases can be seen as an attempt to obscure the company’s identity and may indicate a pattern of deceptive practices.
  Better Business Bureau

3. Customer Complaints and Reports

• Unprofessional Conduct: Clients have reported unprofessional and unethical behavior by GetDandy. For example, a complaint on the BBB website described how the company continued to debit a client’s account for services that were not rendered and failed to respond to repeated contact attempts. The client advised others to avoid working with GetDandy due to their fraudulent behavior.
  Better Business Bureau
• Scam Allegations: The BBB’s Scam Tracker includes reports accusing GetDandy of engaging in marketing scams by soliciting businesses with fake review removal services following the appearance of suspicious negative reviews. These reports suggest a potential scheme where negative reviews are posted to prompt businesses to seek GetDandy’s services.
  Better Business Bureau

4. Questionable Effectiveness of Services

• Automated Review Removal Claims: GetDandy claims to use advanced software and AI-driven technologies to detect and remove unfair reviews without manual intervention. However, the effectiveness of such automated systems is questionable, as review platforms like Google and Yelp have strict policies and processes for review removal that typically require manual requests and verifications.
  Yahoo Finance

While GetDandy markets itself as a solution for businesses seeking to manage their online reputations by removing negative reviews, multiple complaints and reports raise significant concerns about its business practices, legitimacy, and effectiveness. Allegations of unsolicited communications, unregistered operations, unprofessional conduct, and potentially deceptive marketing strategies suggest that businesses should exercise caution when considering GetDandy’s services. It’s advisable for businesses to thoroughly research and verify the credibility and legality of reputation management services before engagement to ensure they are not falling victim to unethical or fraudulent 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 Getdandy trying to hide?

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

In-Depth Investigative Report: GetDandy – Allegations, Complaints, and Ethical Concerns

Introduction GetDandy, operating under the corporate entity Dandy Inc., positions itself as a reputation management company specializing in removing negative online reviews. The company claims to leverage advanced software and artificial intelligence to detect and eliminate “unfair” reviews from platforms like Google, Yelp, and others, providing businesses with clean online profiles and enhanced reputations. While this service may appear valuable, numerous allegations, complaints, and red flags have emerged about the company’s operations, business practices, and legitimacy. This report provides a comprehensive review of these concerns.

1. Company Overview and Claims

GetDandy markets itself as an automated solution to a pervasive problem for businesses—negative reviews. According to its promotional materials:

• Service Offering: The company promises to remove “unfair” or “fake” online reviews using advanced AI and automated technologies.
• Target Audience: Small to medium-sized businesses seeking to maintain or improve their online reputations.
• Global Reach: GetDandy claims to work with businesses across various industries.

However, upon closer examination, discrepancies and concerns about these claims have surfaced:

• Automation Effectiveness: While GetDandy advertises itself as an automated solution, review platforms like Google and Yelp have strict manual processes for evaluating and removing reviews, making the effectiveness of such automation questionable.
• Ownership Transparency: The lack of clear ownership or leadership information raises suspicions about the company’s accountability.

2. Allegations and Complaints

2.1 Unsolicited Communications

One of the most persistent complaints against GetDandy is its aggressive and unsolicited marketing practices. Businesses have reported:

• Receiving unrequested emails and text messages promoting GetDandy’s services.
• Frequent contact attempts, sometimes after a suspicious negative review appears on their business profiles.

Example Case: In March 2022, a complaint filed with the Better Business Bureau (BBB) detailed how a business owner was repeatedly contacted by GetDandy after a 1-star Google review appeared from a user named Kimberly Carr. The business owner alleged that:

• The individual who left the review was not a real customer.
• The review may have been fabricated to prompt the business to use GetDandy’s services. This scenario raises serious concerns about the possibility of coordinated efforts to generate demand for GetDandy’s offerings.

2.2 Lack of Transparency

GetDandy’s business operations have been criticized for their opacity:

• Unregistered Status: Investigations revealed that Dandy Inc. is not registered in California, where it claims to operate. This undermines its credibility and raises questions about its adherence to legal and regulatory standards.
• Multiple Aliases: GetDandy has reportedly operated under different names, such as Reviewvio. These aliases have been linked to similar complaints, suggesting a potential effort to obscure the company’s identity and track record.

2.3 Unethical Business Practices

Clients have accused GetDandy of unethical behavior, including:

• Continuing to charge clients for services not rendered: A complaint on the BBB website detailed how GetDandy debited a business account after the client attempted to cancel services, with no response to repeated requests for resolution.
• Exploiting Negative Reviews for Marketing: Some businesses allege that GetDandy uses or facilitates fake negative reviews to drive demand for its services, a highly unethical practice if substantiated.

3. Questionable Effectiveness of Services

3.1 Review Removal Claims

GetDandy advertises its ability to remove unfair reviews through automated processes. However:

• Platforms like Google and Yelp require manual requests for review removals, backed by evidence. These platforms are known to be stringent in their review policies, making automated removal unlikely without manual intervention.
• Businesses relying on GetDandy’s claims may face disappointment if the promised removals are not successful or take longer than anticipated.

3.2 Limited Client Protections

• No Guarantee of Success: GetDandy does not provide guarantees that reviews will be removed, leaving clients at risk of spending money without seeing results.
• Potential Platform Policy Violations: Engaging in reputation management practices that attempt to manipulate reviews could violate the terms of service of platforms like Google and Yelp, potentially resulting in penalties for the businesses involved.

4. Independent Reviews and Expert Warnings

4.1 Better Business Bureau (BBB)

• GetDandy has multiple complaints logged with the BBB, focusing on unprofessional conduct, continued billing after cancellation, and ineffective service delivery.
• Some clients have labeled the company as a potential scam, citing deceptive practices.

4.2 Financial and Marketing Analysis

• Platforms like Yahoo Finance have highlighted the rise of reputation management companies like GetDandy. While these services are in high demand, companies operating without transparency or ethical practices risk harming their clients’ reputations instead of protecting them.

5. Potential Legal and Ethical Implications

5.1 Legal Risks for Clients

Businesses working with GetDandy may unknowingly:

• Violate review platform policies if unauthorized or unethical methods are used to remove reviews.
• Face reputational damage if their engagement with GetDandy becomes public, particularly if negative reviews resurface or their accounts face penalties.

5.2 Ethical Concerns

• The alleged practice of exploiting fake negative reviews to generate demand for services constitutes a significant ethical violation.
• Lack of clear leadership or accountability within GetDandy raises concerns about its commitment to ethical business operations.

6. Summary of Key Red Flags

7. Recommendations for Businesses

1. Exercise Caution: Avoid engaging with reputation management companies that lack transparency and regulatory compliance.
2. Verify Credentials: Ensure that any service provider is registered and provides clear information about its operations and ownership.
3. Report Issues: If you suspect unethical behavior, report the company to relevant regulatory authorities or consumer protection organizations.
4. Manage Reviews Directly: Utilize official processes provided by review platforms to address negative feedback ethically and transparently.

Conclusion

GetDandy, while presenting itself as a solution for businesses to manage their online reputations, faces significant allegations of unethical practices, inefficiency, and lack of transparency. The combination of unsolicited marketing tactics, questionable service claims, and multiple client complaints suggests a need for businesses to approach such services with caution. Reputation management, when done ethically, can be a valuable tool, but partnering with untrustworthy providers risks more harm than good.

How do we counteract this malpractice?

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

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

Potential Consequences for Getdandy

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 Getdandy Committing a Cyber Crime?

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

What else is Getdandy hiding?

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