AmbitionBox Review Removal in India: Legal Removal of Defamatory and Fake Employer Reviews

Every matter starts on the platform. A Report button sits with every review, and a report can also be emailed to support@ambitionbox.com with proofs; reported content goes to human moderators. We file it on day one because the fake-content ground is decided on evidence an employer holds and a reviewer does not: HR records showing no one matching the stated role, tenure and location was ever employed, and payroll extracts contradicting a specific claim.

The report quotes each false statement, states the fact that contradicts it and attaches the proof, with a signed statement from any real ex-employee whose name was used and any message demanding money. A short employer response goes up at the same time; it neither names the suspected writer nor threatens legal action, both of which the guidelines bar. The guidelines set no timeline; in our experience a decision typically follows within days.

AmbitionBox hosts what its users write, which makes it an intermediary under the Information Technology Act 2000, bound by the IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules 2021. It publishes a named grievance contact and a Noida postal address, as Rule 3(2)(a) requires. A complaint to that officer must be resolved within seven days of receipt under Rule 3(2)(a)(i), cut from fifteen days by the amendment in force since 20 February 2026.

Two limits apply. The 36-hour fast lane in the same rule covers the categories listed in Rule 3(1)(b) except sub-clauses (i), (iv) and (xi); a false review falls under sub-clause (xi), content that violates any law in force, so it runs on the seven-day clock. And a grievance is not a court order: since Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1, the actual knowledge that obliges an intermediary to act under section 79 arises from a court order or a government direction, not a private complaint, and Rule 3(1)(d) now says so in terms.

Where the review survives both, the matter passes to RepuLex's partner law firm, Unified Chambers And Associates, whose advocates carry out the regulated legal work: a notice under advocate signature to the reviewer where identifiable, setting out each false statement, the proof of its falsity and the imputation under section 356; and, where the reviewer is anonymous, an application to the competent court for an order directing AmbitionBox to disclose the account's registration and access data, the John Doe or Ashok Kumar order.

A court order turns discretion into a clock: under Rule 3(1)(d), an intermediary that receives actual knowledge by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction must remove or disable access within three hours. A pay-or-it-stays demand is extortion under section 308 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, whose own illustration is a threat to publish a defamatory libel unless money is paid; the demand is preserved and reported to the police. A review impersonating a named real person falls within Rule 3(2)(b), which requires the platform to act within two hours of that person's complaint; the lane applies only where the reviewer poses as an identifiable real person.