Robert Susa – InventHelp

A summary of what happened?

Robert Susa serves as the President of InventHelp, a company established in 1984 that offers services to inventors aiming to develop and market their inventions. Under Susa’s leadership, InventHelp has faced several significant legal challenges and criticisms:

Class-Action Lawsuits:

• Fraud Allegations (2018): A class-action lawsuit accused InventHelp of engaging in deceptive practices by promising inventors assistance in monetizing their inventions but failing to deliver the advertised services. The plaintiffs alleged that the company charged substantial fees without providing meaningful support.
• Settlement Approval (2023): In March 2023, a court granted final approval for a settlement agreement addressing multiple lawsuits against InventHelp, including Calhoun v. InventHelp, Austin v. InventHelp, and Miclaus v. InventHelp. The settlement aimed to resolve claims of fraudulent invention promotion practices.

Consumer Complaints:

• Better Business Bureau (BBB) Reports: InventHelp has received numerous complaints filed with the BBB, with customers alleging that the company failed to provide promised services and engaged in misleading practices.
  Better Business Bureau
• ConsumerAffairs Reviews: The company holds a mixed rating of 3.3 out of 5 stars based on 402 reviews, with some customers describing their experiences as a “rip-off” and expressing dissatisfaction with the services provided.
  Consumer Affairs

Media Coverage:

• Investigative Reports: Media outlets have reported on InventHelp’s business practices, highlighting allegations of scamming thousands of inventors by charging fees without delivering substantial results.
  CBS News

These legal challenges and consumer complaints suggest that InventHelp, under Robert Susa’s leadership, has faced significant scrutiny regarding its business practices and the effectiveness of its services offered to inventors.

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 Robert Susa - InventHelp trying to hide?

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

Investigative Report: An In-Depth Look at Robert Susa and InventHelp

Introduction

Robert Susa is the President of InventHelp, a Pittsburgh-based company founded in 1984 that markets itself as a service provider for inventors looking to patent, develop, and market their ideas. Over the years, InventHelp has faced a barrage of criticism, lawsuits, and negative media coverage alleging fraudulent practices, deceptive marketing, and failure to deliver on promises. This investigation compiles and examines these allegations, complaints, and legal challenges to provide a comprehensive picture of the controversies surrounding the company and its leadership.

The Business Model of InventHelp

InventHelp claims to assist inventors by connecting them with potential manufacturers, providing patent services, and marketing their ideas. The company charges inventors substantial fees—often amounting to thousands of dollars—for these services. However, critics argue that InventHelp’s business model exploits the dreams of inventors, delivering little in return.

Key Offerings:

1. Patent Referral Services: InventHelp directs inventors to patent attorneys for filing intellectual property rights.
2. Marketing Assistance: Promises to present ideas to manufacturers through their Invention Submission Services.
3. Proprietary Events: Claims to promote inventions at trade shows like the InventHelp’s INPEX® exposition.

Many inventors allege these services fall short of expectations, leading to widespread dissatisfaction.

Allegations and Complaints

Fraud Allegations

InventHelp has been accused of preying on inventors’ ambitions by charging exorbitant fees for services that yield minimal, if any, results. Allegations suggest:

• Misleading advertisements creating false hope of invention success.
• Failure to connect inventors with credible manufacturers or companies interested in licensing ideas.
• Inflated success rates to lure customers.

A class-action lawsuit in 2018 accused InventHelp of systematically defrauding inventors by charging for services that provided no tangible benefits. Plaintiffs claimed that the company knowingly misrepresented its abilities to secure deals or generate profits for clients.

Lawsuits and Legal Challenges

1. Calhoun v. Invention Submission Corp. (InventHelp):
   • This class-action lawsuit alleged fraud, deceptive business practices, and breach of contract. Inventors reported that the company failed to deliver on promises of assisting them in marketing and licensing their ideas.
2. Austin v. InventHelp:
   • In this case, the plaintiffs accused InventHelp of overcharging for subpar services and failing to provide genuine opportunities for inventors to succeed.
3. Miclaus v. InventHelp:
   • Similar to other lawsuits, this case accused the company of misleading inventors, offering ineffective services, and engaging in fraudulent behavior.

Settlement:

In 2023, a federal court approved a settlement in these lawsuits, allowing InventHelp to avoid a trial. While the settlement provided some relief to affected inventors, critics argued it did not sufficiently address the systemic issues within the company.

Consumer Complaints

1. Better Business Bureau (BBB):
   • InventHelp has received hundreds of complaints on the BBB website, with clients alleging:
     • Poor service delivery.
     • Misrepresentation of success rates.
     • Lack of transparency about costs and outcomes.
   • Common themes in complaints include inventors feeling “scammed” or “duped.”
2. Online Reviews:
   • Platforms like ConsumerAffairs and Trustpilot feature a mix of reviews. Many clients express frustration with the company, describing their experiences as a “waste of money” or “fraudulent.”

Negative Media Coverage

Investigative Reports:

• Pittsburgh-based WTAE-TV (2018): A detailed report accused InventHelp of scamming thousands of inventors nationwide. The investigation highlighted accounts of inventors who paid significant fees but received no meaningful assistance in return.
• Truth in Advertising (TINA.org): TINA.org published extensive critiques of InventHelp’s practices, labeling them as predatory and exploitative. Their research revealed InventHelp’s misleading claims about success rates and its tendency to prioritize profits over client outcomes.
• Westfair Online: In an article titled “Would-be Inventors Accuse InventHelp of Fraud,” Westfair Online discussed the $36 million fraud allegations brought by inventors in court.

Key Figures in the Controversy

Robert Susa

As the President of InventHelp, Robert Susa has been at the helm during many of these controversies. Critics question his role in perpetuating practices that allegedly exploit inventors, particularly since complaints against InventHelp date back decades. While Susa has not been personally accused of criminal wrongdoing, his leadership has been scrutinized for failing to address systemic issues within the company.

Regulatory Concerns

Compliance with Invention Marketing Laws

InventHelp has faced scrutiny for potentially violating the American Inventors Protection Act (AIPA), which requires invention promotion companies to:

• Provide accurate statistics on the number of successful inventions.
• Disclose relationships with manufacturers and patent firms.

Critics allege InventHelp routinely fails to comply with these requirements, misleading customers about the likelihood of success.

Sanctions and Settlements

While no criminal sanctions have been imposed, multiple lawsuits have resulted in settlements, forcing InventHelp to pay damages to affected clients. The company has also been ordered to revise its marketing practices, though critics argue these changes have been insufficient.

Conclusion: A Troubling Legacy

The allegations, lawsuits, and widespread complaints against InventHelp paint a troubling picture of a company that has capitalized on the dreams of inventors while failing to deliver meaningful results. Under Robert Susa’s leadership, InventHelp has faced repeated legal challenges and a wave of negative publicity, raising questions about the ethical and operational practices of the organization.

Open Questions:

1. Has InventHelp implemented meaningful reforms to address systemic issues?
2. Are inventors adequately protected from exploitation under current invention marketing laws?

This investigation underscores the need for greater oversight in the invention promotion industry and highlights the risks faced by aspiring inventors entrusting their ideas to companies like InventHelp.

How do we counteract this malpractice?

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

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

Potential Consequences for Robert Susa - InventHelp

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 Robert Susa - InventHelp Committing a Cyber Crime?

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

What else is Robert Susa - InventHelp hiding?

We encourage you to ‘Dork‘ Google by searching for keyword combinations such as [Robert Susa – InventHelp] + {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 Robert Susa – InventHelp 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.