Watch Rapport

A summary of what happened?

Watch Rapport is an online watch dealer based in Stateline, Nevada, specializing in the sale of luxury timepieces. However, the company has faced numerous complaints and accusations from customers regarding its business practices.

Major Concerns and Complaints:

1. Non-Delivery of Purchased Watches: Customers have reported paying substantial amounts for watches that were never delivered. For instance, one customer paid over $11,000 in January 2024 and, as of October 2024, had not received the watch despite multiple attempts to contact the company.
   Better Business Bureau
2. Delayed or Unfulfilled Refunds: Many customers who requested refunds due to non-delivery experienced significant delays or did not receive their refunds at all. One individual reported waiting over a month for a refund after the company failed to deliver the purchased watch and found it difficult to get in touch with customer service.
   Watchuseek
3. Lack of Communication: There are numerous reports of customers struggling to obtain updates on their orders or refunds, with customer service often being unresponsive or providing generic responses.
   Better Business Bureau
4. Misleading Listings: Some customers allege that Watch Rapport lists watches for sale without actually having them in stock, leading to prolonged delays as the company attempts to source the watches post-purchase. This practice has been described as a “ponzi” scheme by affected customers.
   Better Business Bureau
5. Questionable Business Practices: The Better Business Bureau (BBB) has noted a pattern of complaints against Watch Rapport, including long shipping delays, issues with refunds after cancellations, and difficulties in obtaining updates from customer service. Additionally, there are allegations that product photos on their website have been duplicated from other sites.
   Better Business Bureau

These issues have led to a significant number of dissatisfied customers and raised concerns about the company’s reliability and trustworthiness in the luxury watch market.

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 Watch Rapport trying to hide?

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

Investigative Report: Watch Rapport and Allegations Against Its Business Practices

Overview of Watch Rapport

Watch Rapport is an online luxury watch retailer based in Stateline, Nevada. The company claims to provide access to high-end timepieces, catering to an audience seeking exclusive luxury watches. However, the company has become a subject of controversy due to a series of complaints, allegations, and accusations raised by customers and watchdog organizations. Below is a comprehensive account of these issues, including customer complaints, allegations of unethical practices, and a review of Watch Rapport’s response.

Customer Complaints: The Core Issues

1. Non-Delivery of Watches

One of the most consistent themes in customer complaints is the failure to deliver purchased watches. Several customers have reported paying thousands of dollars for watches that never arrived. For example:

• A customer who paid over $11,000 in early 2024 reported that, even months later, the watch was not delivered. Despite repeated follow-ups, the company provided no clear timeline or resolution.

2. Refund Issues

The company has faced widespread criticism for its handling of refund requests. Customers who canceled their orders due to non-delivery often struggled to receive their refunds. Complaints include:

• Delays of over a month in refund processing.
• Non-responsive customer service when refunds were requested.
• Partial refunds or outright refusal to issue refunds in some cases.

3. Lack of Communication

Many customers have expressed frustration with the company’s lack of transparency and communication. Complaints detail:

• Difficulty in reaching customer support representatives.
• Vague or generic responses when inquiries were made about the status of an order or refund.
• Prolonged silence, leaving customers uncertain about their purchase.

4. Misleading Listings and Stock Issues

Another key issue revolves around allegations that Watch Rapport lists watches for sale that are not actually in stock. Customers allege that:

• The company collects payment before sourcing the watches, leading to prolonged delays.
• Listings on the website may include items the company does not have access to, effectively misrepresenting its inventory.
• Some customers described this as a “bait-and-switch” practice or compared it to a pyramid or Ponzi scheme.

5. Questionable Product Authenticity and Marketing Practices

Certain customers and reviewers have pointed out discrepancies in the product listings, suggesting that:

• Images on Watch Rapport’s website might be taken from other online platforms, raising doubts about authenticity.
• The company lacks transparency about the source and condition of its inventory.

Legal and Regulatory Scrutiny

Better Business Bureau (BBB) Observations

The BBB has highlighted a pattern of complaints against Watch Rapport. The company holds an “F” rating due to:

• Persistent complaints about delivery issues.
• The company’s failure to resolve complaints effectively.
• Customer accusations of deceptive practices.

Potential Legal Ramifications

As of now, there is no public record of major lawsuits or formal regulatory sanctions against Watch Rapport. However, the volume and nature of complaints could lead to legal investigations, particularly under consumer protection laws that prohibit deceptive trade practices.

Online Forums and Public Perception

Watch Forums and Consumer Advocacy

Discussions on watch enthusiast platforms, such as Watchuseek, paint a grim picture of Watch Rapport. Users have shared detailed accounts of:

• Financial losses due to undelivered watches.
• Negative experiences with customer service.
• Warnings to avoid doing business with the company.

For example, in one thread titled “Do Not Buy From Watch Rapport,” users outlined their own grievances while cautioning others about the risks of transacting with the company.

Consumer Reviews

Consumer reviews across platforms echo similar sentiments:

• Trustpilot reviews often highlight unfulfilled promises and poor communication.
• Google reviews and complaints on platforms like BBB’s website underscore dissatisfaction with Watch Rapport’s handling of orders and refunds.

Public Allegations and Accusations

Allegations of Fraud

Some customers have gone as far as accusing Watch Rapport of fraudulent activity. Allegations include:

• Operating under the pretense of having inventory they do not possess.
• Failing to return funds for undelivered goods, which some see as deliberate and unethical behavior.

Speculation About Financial Instability

A few customers and industry observers speculate that the company may be struggling financially. Evidence cited includes:

• Delays in issuing refunds, suggesting possible cash flow problems.
• A reliance on upfront payments without the capability to fulfill orders promptly.

Response from Watch Rapport

Watch Rapport has issued statements in the past claiming that they are committed to resolving customer concerns and maintaining a transparent business. However:

• These statements often lack specifics and do not address the underlying complaints in a meaningful way.
• Customers continue to report dissatisfaction despite reassurances from the company.

The company has also indicated that sourcing luxury watches can involve delays due to the exclusivity of the market. While this explanation holds merit in certain contexts, it does not account for prolonged non-delivery or the failure to process refunds in a timely manner.

Conclusion

The complaints and allegations against Watch Rapport raise serious concerns about the company’s business practices. Key takeaways include:

• A pattern of delayed or non-existent deliveries, raising questions about inventory management.
• A lack of responsiveness to customer concerns, undermining trust and goodwill.
• Allegations of misleading marketing and potentially unethical practices.

While the company markets itself as a reputable luxury watch dealer, the experiences shared by numerous customers suggest otherwise. Consumers considering purchasing from Watch Rapport are advised to proceed with caution and to thoroughly investigate the company’s track record before committing to a transaction.

This report serves as a warning to consumers and a call for greater scrutiny into the practices of Watch Rapport to protect potential customers from financial losses.

How do we counteract this malpractice?

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

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

Potential Consequences for Watch Rapport

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 Watch Rapport Committing a Cyber Crime?

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

What else is Watch Rapport hiding?

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