Mush Plushies

A summary of what happened?

Mush Plushies, an online retailer specializing in plush toys, has been the subject of numerous complaints related to deceptive business practices. Although the company has not been explicitly involved in internet censorship, its controversial practices raise concerns about how it may be trying to avoid transparency and accountability. Here are three major complaints and accusations against Mush Plushies:

1. Hidden Subscription Fees: Customers frequently report being unknowingly enrolled in a subscription service when making purchases. This “VIP membership” costs around $50 per month and is not clearly communicated during the checkout process. Many buyers only realize they have subscribed after noticing recurring charges on their bank statements, and canceling the subscription is often difficult.
2. Poor Product Quality and False Advertising: Many customers have expressed dissatisfaction with the products they receive, citing significant differences between the advertised and actual items. Products like plush toys are described as weighted or premium quality, but customers often find them to be lightweight, smaller than expected, and of low quality. This misrepresentation has led to frustration and claims of false advertising.
3. Unauthorized Charges and Multiple Business Names: Customers have reported mysterious charges appearing on their credit card statements after shopping with Mush Plushies. In some cases, these charges come from different business names, adding to the confusion and suspicion surrounding the company’s billing practices. The lack of transparency about these charges and the difficulty in obtaining refunds or clarifications further exacerbates the issue.

These recurring issues have led to widespread accusations that Mush Plushies is engaging in fraudulent activities, with the company using misleading tactics to exploit customers.

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 Mush Plushies trying to hide?

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

Mush Plushies has been the subject of multiple negative reviews, complaints, and allegations across various platforms. Below is a summary of adverse news, allegations, lawsuits, and complaints regarding the company:

1. Allegations of Fraudulent Business Practices

• Hidden Subscription Fees: One of the most frequent complaints involves customers being unknowingly enrolled in a monthly subscription for a VIP membership, which charges around $50. Many buyers reported that this subscription was not clearly disclosed at checkout, and canceling it proved difficult. This practice has been widely condemned as deceptive.
• Unauthorized Charges: Customers have reported unexplained charges on their credit card statements, often under different business names. These charges have been linked to subscriptions or third-party services that customers were unaware of signing up for, contributing to accusations of fraudulent billing practices.
• Multiple Business Names: Mush Plushies has been accused of using different business names when billing customers, leading to confusion. Some names that appeared on credit card statements include “Hairflair-In.com” and “AdSwaggy,” which were unexpected and not directly linked to the Mush Plushies brand.

2. Poor Product Quality and False Advertising

• Low-Quality Products: Many customers who purchased plush toys from Mush Plushies reported receiving products that did not match the descriptions on the website. Items that were advertised as weighted plush toys for anxiety relief were described as lightweight, cheaply made, and far smaller than expected. This has led to accusations of false advertising.
• Product Misrepresentation: Some buyers reported receiving products with labels written in Chinese, contrary to the company’s marketing of itself as a small American business. This discrepancy has fueled further distrust and dissatisfaction among customers.

3. Complaints About Customer Service

• Lack of Customer Support: Numerous complaints have been made about the company’s failure to respond to customer inquiries regarding order status, refunds, or subscription cancellations. Customers often reported that they were unable to get a response from the company unless they escalated their complaints through third-party platforms like the Better Business Bureau (BBB).
• Refusal to Provide Refunds: Many customers stated that Mush Plushies had a strict no-refund policy, even when orders were canceled or when customers were unsatisfied with the quality of the product. This refusal to issue refunds has led to frustration and claims of unethical business practices.

4. Accusations on Online Platforms

• Reddit Complaints: On platforms like Reddit, there are numerous posts warning users not to buy from Mush Plushies. Users have shared their experiences with hidden subscription fees, poor-quality products, and unauthorized charges. These complaints have garnered significant attention, with many commenters agreeing that the company engages in fraudulent practices.
  • Example: Reddit – Do Not Buy From Mush Plushies
• Negative Reviews on Trustpilot: Mush Plushies has garnered overwhelmingly negative reviews on Trustpilot, with customers highlighting hidden charges, low-quality products, and poor customer service. Many reviewers have warned others to avoid the company due to these issues.
  • Example: Trustpilot Mush Plushies Reviews
• Malwaretips Accusations: According to a review on Malwaretips, Mush Plushies has been accused of operating as a drop-shipping site with poor security measures. Customers reported that after shopping with Mush Plushies, they noticed unauthorized charges or suspected their personal information had been compromised.
  • Example: Malwaretips Mush Plushies Review

5. Potential Legal and Regulatory Issues

• Although there is no public information regarding specific lawsuits or sanctions against Mush Plushies, the nature of the complaints—especially involving fraudulent billing practices and unauthorized charges—could potentially lead to legal action or regulatory intervention. Customers have been encouraged to report the company to consumer protection agencies like the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).

Summary of Major Complaints:

• Hidden and undisclosed subscription fees that result in unauthorized charges.
• Low-quality products that do not match advertised descriptions.
• Unclear and misleading billing practices, including the use of different company names.
• Poor customer service, with delayed or no response to refund requests and inquiries.
• No refund policy even for products that were not delivered as described.

These complaints across multiple platforms highlight a consistent pattern of dissatisfaction and allegations of fraudulent behavior against Mush Plushies.

How do we counteract this malpractice?

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

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

Potential Consequences for Mush Plushies

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 Mush Plushies Committing a Cyber Crime?

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

What else is Mush Plushies hiding?

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