Smoothstack Inc

A summary of what happened?

Smoothstack Inc. is an IT staffing and training company based in McLean, Virginia. The company recruits individuals, often recent graduates or those seeking to transition into IT careers, offering them training programs followed by placement with client companies.

Major Concerns and Allegations Against Smoothstack Inc.:

1. Training Repayment Agreement Provisions (TRAPs):
   • Smoothstack requires trainees to sign agreements obligating them to complete approximately two years (4,000 hours) of billable work after training. If they leave before fulfilling this commitment, they face penalties up to $30,000, purportedly to cover training costs and lost profits.
     Department of Labor
2. Minimum Wage Violations:
   • The U.S. Department of Labor alleges that these repayment demands can reduce employees’ earnings below the federal minimum wage, violating the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
     Department of Labor
3. Restrictive Employment Agreements:
   • Employees are reportedly bound by broad non-disparagement and confidentiality clauses, limiting their ability to discuss employment terms, pay rates, or workplace issues. These provisions may unlawfully restrict employees from engaging in activities protected under the FLSA.
     Department of Labor
4. Legal Actions and Investigations:
   • In July 2024, the Department of Labor filed a lawsuit against Smoothstack and its co-founder, Boris Kuiper, seeking to end practices that allegedly exploit workers through a system akin to modern-day indentured servitude.
     Department of Labor
   • A class-action lawsuit was also filed, accusing Smoothstack of unlawful wage schemes and enforcing TRAPs that deter employees from leaving due to substantial financial penalties.
     ClassAction.org
5. Employee Experiences:
   • Some employees have reported dissatisfaction with the training structure and placement process. For instance, a former DevOps Engineer noted that only about 30% of their cohort secured placements, with selections influenced by geographic location.
     Indeed

These concerns highlight significant issues regarding Smoothstack’s employment practices, particularly the use of TRAPs, wage compliance, and restrictive agreements that may infringe upon workers’ rights.

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 Smoothstack Inc trying to hide?

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

Investigative Report: Examining Smoothstack Inc. – Allegations, Complaints, and Legal Challenges

Introduction

Smoothstack Inc., a Virginia-based IT staffing and training company, has faced significant criticism and legal scrutiny over its employment practices. The company positions itself as a gateway to prestigious IT careers, targeting recent graduates and career changers by offering immersive training programs followed by client placements. However, Smoothstack has been accused of exploiting employees through restrictive contracts, financial penalties, and practices that allegedly violate federal labor laws. This report delves into the controversies surrounding Smoothstack, drawing from legal filings, employee testimonies, and public reviews.

1. Smoothstack’s Employment Model

Smoothstack recruits aspiring IT professionals with promises of career advancement and hands-on training. Employees undergo an unpaid training period, followed by job placements with client companies. The company’s model has been criticized for its reliance on Training Repayment Agreement Provisions (TRAPs), which bind employees to the company under strict terms.

2. Key Allegations Against Smoothstack

2.1. Training Repayment Agreement Provisions (TRAPs)

• Nature of the Agreement:
  • Employees are required to sign contracts committing to approximately two years (4,000 hours) of billable work after training.
  • If employees leave the company before fulfilling this obligation, they face penalties ranging from $20,000 to $30,000, purportedly to cover training costs and lost profits.
• Criticism of TRAPs:
  • Former employees have described these provisions as coercive, effectively creating a financial barrier to leaving the company.
  • Critics argue that such agreements disproportionately impact vulnerable workers, including recent graduates and individuals transitioning careers, who may lack alternative employment opportunities.

2.2. Minimum Wage Violations

• Department of Labor Allegations:
  • The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) alleges that Smoothstack’s repayment demands effectively reduce employees’ earnings below the federal minimum wage, violating the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
  • During training periods, employees reportedly receive little to no compensation, which raises concerns about labor law compliance.
• Employee Testimonies:
  • Employees have reported being required to pay penalties even after completing their unpaid training. For some, these payments further reduced their take-home wages, exacerbating financial difficulties.

2.3. Restrictive Employment Agreements

• Non-Disparagement and Confidentiality Clauses:
  • Smoothstack allegedly enforces broad non-disparagement and confidentiality agreements that prevent employees from discussing pay, workplace conditions, or terms of employment.
  • The DOL contends that these provisions unlawfully restrict employees from engaging in activities protected under the FLSA, such as organizing or filing complaints.
• Impact on Workers:
  • Employees have expressed frustration with the lack of transparency and the chilling effect these clauses have on their ability to address grievances or share their experiences publicly.

2.4. Legal Actions Against Smoothstack

1. Department of Labor Lawsuit:
   • In July 2024, the DOL filed a lawsuit against Smoothstack and its co-founder, Boris Kuiper, alleging violations of the FLSA. The lawsuit seeks:
     • The elimination of TRAPs.
     • Repayment of unpaid wages.
     • Civil penalties for labor law violations.
   • The DOL described Smoothstack’s practices as akin to “modern-day indentured servitude,” exploiting employees through financial coercion.
2. Class-Action Lawsuit:
   • A separate class-action lawsuit was filed by former employees, accusing the company of:
     • Enforcing unlawful wage schemes.
     • Using TRAPs to deter employees from leaving.
     • Imposing financial penalties disproportionate to the cost of training.
   • Plaintiffs argue that the contracts violate labor laws and unfairly target vulnerable workers.

3. Employee Experiences and Complaints

3.1. Recruitment Promises vs. Reality

• Misleading Expectations:
  • Employees report that the company overpromises on job placement rates and career opportunities.
  • One former employee stated that only about 30% of their training cohort secured placements, with location preferences playing a significant role in selection.
• Lack of Support:
  • Employees have criticized Smoothstack for failing to provide adequate support during the placement process, leaving many without clear paths to success.

3.2. Financial Hardship

• Unpaid Training Periods:
  • The unpaid training period has been described as exploitative, forcing employees to bear the cost of living expenses without compensation.
  • For many, this financial strain is compounded by the looming threat of repayment penalties.
• Debt Enforcement:
  • Employees who leave early or are unable to meet the 4,000-hour requirement face aggressive debt collection efforts, which can include threats of legal action.

4. Broader Implications and Industry Impact

4.1. TRAPs in the Staffing Industry

• Widespread Practice:
  • Training repayment agreements are increasingly used in industries like IT staffing, raising ethical and legal questions about their fairness.
  • Critics argue that such practices disproportionately affect early-career professionals and restrict mobility in competitive labor markets.
• Regulatory Response:
  • The DOL’s lawsuit against Smoothstack may set a precedent for how TRAPs are regulated in the future, potentially curbing their misuse.

4.2. Trust in IT Staffing Firms

• Damage to Reputation:
  • Smoothstack’s controversies have fueled skepticism toward IT staffing companies, with many job seekers questioning the legitimacy of similar firms.
  • Negative reviews and lawsuits have tarnished the company’s image, making it harder to attract top talent.

5. Negative Reviews and Public Perception

• Online Reviews:
  • Platforms like Glassdoor and Indeed feature mixed reviews, with many employees highlighting the restrictive contracts and financial penalties as significant drawbacks.
  • Positive reviews often emphasize the training quality but note that the placement process is inconsistent and lacks transparency.
• Public Criticism:
  • Advocacy groups and labor organizations have criticized Smoothstack for exploiting legal loopholes to impose unfair financial burdens on workers.

Conclusion

Smoothstack Inc.’s employment practices, particularly its use of TRAPs and restrictive agreements, have drawn significant criticism and legal challenges. While the company positions itself as a career-launching platform for aspiring IT professionals, its methods have been described as coercive and exploitative by former employees and labor advocates.

The outcome of ongoing legal actions, including the Department of Labor lawsuit and the class-action case, will likely shape the future of employment practices within the IT staffing industry. For now, potential employees are advised to thoroughly review contractual terms and weigh the risks before engaging with firms like Smoothstack. Transparency, fair wages, and employee empowerment must become central to staffing firms’ operations if they are to regain trust and credibility in the industry.

How do we counteract this malpractice?

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

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

Potential Consequences for Smoothstack Inc

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 Smoothstack Inc Committing a Cyber Crime?

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

What else is Smoothstack Inc hiding?

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