111 questions.
Straight answers.

RepuLex is India's leading full-spectrum reputation management agency, built legal-first. Most ORM agencies sell suppression — creating positive content to push a negative result onto page two, for a fee that never stops. RepuLex removes the content itself, using the IT Act 2000, defamation law, the Right to Be Forgotten and court orders where needed. Around that flagship sits the complete suite: executive and corporate reputation, crisis management, negative-news de-indexing, Wikipedia and Knowledge Panel work, AI reputation management, digital PR and monitoring. The distinction that matters is permanence — suppressed content is still there and returns when you stop paying; removed content is gone from the platform and from the index.

Neither, and the distinction is worth understanding before you engage anyone in this category. RepuLex is a reputation management agency. It is not a law firm and does not hold itself out as one. The regulated legal work on an engagement — notices issued under advocate signature, court filings, appearances — is executed by our partner law firm, Unified Chambers And Associates, whose advocates are Bar Council registered. We are also not a digital marketing agency: we do not sell SEO retainers, social media management or content marketing. An agency that tells you it is a law firm, or a law firm that markets removal like a subscription, is worth a second look.

Bar Council-registered advocates at our partner law firm, Unified Chambers And Associates. RepuLex runs the case — assessment, mapping the spread of the content, platform routes, negotiation with publishers, monitoring and reporting. Anything that constitutes the practice of law is done by the firm: the notice goes out under an advocate's signature, and any filing or appearance is theirs. On engagements where the legal route is central, fees are paid into the law firm's account rather than ours, and any refund is released from there. RepuLex also has a Legal Advisory Board that includes Advocate Subodh Bajpai of the Delhi High Court in an advisory capacity.

Both, though removal is the flagship and the reason most clients arrive. The wider suite covers executive and corporate reputation programmes, online crisis management, negative-news management and de-indexing, Wikipedia page management, Google Knowledge Panel work, AI reputation management for what ChatGPT and Gemini say about you, digital PR and authority building, and continuous monitoring. In practice the work is usually sequenced: remove what is false and removable, then build and monitor what should rank in its place. Removal without anything behind it leaves a vacuum; content-building without removal leaves the problem live underneath.

We do not write or buy fake reviews, and we do not run review-generation schemes — both are deceptive and, under the Consumer Protection Act, unlawful. We do not sell SEO suppression as a substitute for removal, because the content stays live and returns when the retainer stops. We do not take on the removal of true, lawfully published reporting simply because a client finds it inconvenient; where the reporting is accurate and the proceedings are live, we say so and decline. We do not handle content involving minors as a reputation matter — that goes to the police. And we do not tell clients a matter is winnable when it is not, which is why our refund returns the fee rather than offering more work in its place.

Yes — across 2026, RepuLex has been featured in national publications including NewsX, Business Standard, The Print, Tribune India, ANI, Ahmedabad Mirror, The Daily Guardian, First India, Lokmat Times and Latestly, covering the emergence of legal-first reputation management as a distinct category in India. The full set with links is at /press. We publish it because in this category you should be able to verify what an agency claims about itself before you send money, and because press coverage is one of the few claims a prospect can check independently.

Generally no, and the reason is the same reason you would hire us. Nearly every client comes to us over material they want no one to know existed — a leaked video, an investigation, a defamatory allegation. Putting them on a call with a stranger to vouch for us would defeat the confidentiality we sold them. What we can share instead is an anonymised case report showing publications, outcomes and the proportion actioned, with identities and URLs stripped. If an agency in this category readily hands you client references, it is worth asking what it tells its clients about you.

RepuLex is headquartered in New Delhi, India, with a network of 1,000+ legal counsels covering all 25 major High Court jurisdictions across India. We handle cases from every state and every major city.

RepuLex was founded in 2024 and has since handled 2,400+ content removal cases with a 97% success rate. Our founding team brings combined decades of experience in IT law, defamation practice, and digital platforms.

Our legal jurisdiction is India, and we operate under Indian law (IT Act 2000, IPC, High Court orders). However, because most platforms — Google, Meta, X, YouTube — are US-incorporated, we also use DMCA notices and international platform legal channels. For content on Indian portals affecting overseas Indians, we handle those cases.

Do four things, in this order. First, do not contact the person who posted it and do not pay anyone demanding money — payment almost always leads to further demands, and it destroys the leverage you have. Second, preserve evidence: screenshot the page including the full URL and the visible date, and save the link itself. Do not delete anything from your own phone or accounts, even messages you are ashamed of, because they establish that the content was private and shared in confidence. Third, report it to the platform immediately through its own reporting route — that starts a statutory clock, which matters even if you engage us later. Fourth, contact us on +91-93547-47487. Our initial assessment on this category is within the hour, not within a working day. Nothing you tell us goes further, and an NDA is executed before any detailed case discussion.

The legal deadline is two hours. Rule 3(2)(b) of the IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules 2021 requires an intermediary to remove or disable access to content within two hours of receiving a complaint from the affected individual (24 hours until 20 February 2026), where the material exposes a private area, shows full or partial nudity, depicts a sexual act, or is impersonation in electronic form including artificially morphed images. This is the shortest removal timeline anywhere in Indian content law: a defamation complaint gets a seven-day grievance clock, and obtaining a court order can take weeks. Practically, compliant platforms and mainstream hosts act inside that window. Non-compliant and offshore hosts take longer and need escalation, which is why we run these as a sweep rather than a single notice.

Several apply at once, which is what makes this category enforceable. IT Rules 2021 Rule 3(2)(b) gives the two-hour removal obligation. Section 66E of the IT Act 2000 makes capturing, publishing or transmitting images of a private area without consent punishable with up to three years imprisonment. Sections 67 and 67A of the IT Act cover publishing obscene and sexually explicit material electronically, with 67A carrying up to five years on first conviction. Under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, voyeurism and stalking provisions apply to the person who captured or circulated the material. Where the content sits behind a search result, the Right to Be Forgotten and privacy jurisprudence supports de-indexing separately from removal at the host. You do not need all of these to succeed — you need the right one for each platform.

All of it is the objective, and it is the reason this work is handled as a sweep rather than as one notice. Leaked material mirrors quickly — a single video is typically reposted across aggregator sites, tube sites, file hosts, Telegram channels and sometimes a throwaway blog, each with a different host, jurisdiction and reporting route. We map the full spread first, including copies you have not found, and then work the whole set in parallel with the host, the CDN, the domain registrar and the search engines. Removing only the copy you know about is the most common mistake in this category, because the remaining mirrors re-seed the search results within days.

No. Removal under the IT Rules is a civil route and runs on a complaint from you as the affected individual, not on a police report. We can begin the same day without an FIR. That said, an FIR is often worth filing in parallel where you want the person responsible identified or prosecuted, and it strengthens escalation against a host that ignores the civil route. We will tell you plainly when we think an FIR helps your case and when it only adds delay and exposure. The decision stays yours.

Not through the removal route. Notices to platforms under Rule 3(2)(b) are made on your behalf by the partner law firm and are not published anywhere. Indian courts also restrict publication of the identity of victims in this category, and where proceedings are filed, anonymisation can be sought at the outset. The fear of being named is the single most common reason people leave this content up for months, and it is worth knowing that the fear is largely misplaced: the removal route is confidential by design. What we cannot control is a person who already knows and chooses to talk.

It strengthens your position rather than weakening it. Rule 3(2)(b) expressly covers impersonation in electronic form, "including artificially morphed images of such individual", so a deepfake or a face-swapped image falls inside the same two-hour obligation as a genuine photograph. You do not have to prove the image is real to have it removed — and you should never feel obliged to discuss whether it is. In practice, morphed content is often easier to action, because the platform does not have to weigh a consent question.

Yes, and both are necessary. Removal at the host deletes the file; de-indexing removes the search result that leads people to it. If only the host acts, cached copies and the search listing can persist; if only Google acts, the content stays live for anyone with the link. We pursue both in parallel and verify each. Google additionally operates a dedicated removal route for non-consensual explicit imagery which does not require a court order, and we use it alongside the statutory notice rather than instead of it.

Offshore hosting slows things down but does not put the content out of reach. Indian rules bind any intermediary offering services in India, and the largest platforms comply regardless of where they are incorporated. For genuinely non-compliant offshore sites, the routes that work are the host and upstream provider rather than the site operator, the CDN in front of it, the domain registrar, payment processors where the site is commercial, and de-indexing so the material is no longer findable even while it remains live. We will tell you honestly at assessment which of your URLs sit in this harder category, before you pay anything.

Partly, and we will not overstate it. Telegram channels and bots can be reported and removed, and we do that, but the platform is slower and less consistent than mainstream hosts. WhatsApp is end-to-end encrypted, so no one can delete a message already sitting on someone else's phone. What can be done is removing the public distribution points that feed the private sharing — the channels, the links, the hosted files — so the material stops spreading and stops being findable. Anyone who promises to delete content from private phones is not being straight with you.

You can, and nothing on this page depends on you not doing so. Google runs a removal request for non-consensual explicit imagery, the major adult sites and every large platform have a content-removal or grievance route, and StopNCII.org offers hash-blocking for adults that stops re-uploads on participating platforms. What those routes do not do on their own is find every mirror, hold each host to its clock, escalate the ones that stay silent, or keep watching for re-uploads, and they are one form at a time while the file keeps spreading. That work is what RepuLex is paid for; it is quoted as a sweep, at concessional rates for individuals, and it starts the same day.

This category is quoted as a sweep rather than per URL, because the same file is typically mirrored across many hosts and a per-URL price would be both punitive and misleading. We map the full spread first and quote against it, so you know the number before committing. Standard published rates apply where the matter is genuinely a small number of URLs on mainstream platforms. Fees are payable in advance and are refunded in full for anything not removed within the timeline agreed for it — including where a host simply refuses, because that is our risk to carry rather than yours.

Re-uploading is normal in this category and the engagement is built around it rather than ending at the first takedown. Where the same URL reappears after a confirmed removal, we address it as a continuation at no additional charge. Where the material surfaces at a new URL, monitoring is what catches it — we watch the known spread and the search results for re-emergence and act on it rather than waiting for you to find it. Hash-based blocking through StopNCII is worth doing in parallel because it prevents some re-uploads from ever completing.

As few people as possible, and never more than the work requires. We do not need you to send us the content itself to begin — URLs are enough, and URLs are what we work from. Where the material must be reviewed to prepare a notice, it is handled by the case lead and the advocate at the partner law firm, under an NDA executed before any detailed discussion, and it is not circulated internally, stored on personal devices or used in any case study, testimonial or marketing material. You may ask us at any point to confirm in writing what we hold and to delete it.

Then it is not a reputation matter and we will not treat it as one. Sexual content involving a minor is child sexual abuse material, and the correct route is an immediate report to the police and to the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal at cybercrime.gov.in, which has a dedicated reporting category for it. Reporting is a legal obligation, not a choice, and it takes priority over any removal engagement. We will help you make that report and will pursue removal and de-indexing alongside it, but we will not accept an instruction to handle such content quietly instead of reporting it.

We use multiple legal routes depending on the content and platform: (1) IT Act 2000 Section 79 — safe harbour is lost when a platform fails to act on a court order or government direction; (2) IT (Intermediary Guidelines) Rules 2021 — grievance deadlines of seven days, 36 hours for privacy and impersonation content, and three hours on a court order; (3) IPC Sections 499/500 — criminal defamation provisions requiring content removal; (4) DMCA takedown for US-hosted content; (5) High Court injunctions where platforms are non-compliant.

Not always. Many removals are achieved through formal IT Act notices and legal notices alone — without going to court. Court orders are pursued when platforms refuse to comply with notices, when the content is particularly damaging and warrants an injunction, or when the originator needs to be legally restrained.

If a platform does not comply with our formal legal notice within the mandated period, we escalate to court proceedings — at no additional charge under our standard plans. We file for an injunction in the appropriate High Court, which creates a binding legal obligation on the platform's Indian operations.

Yes. Anonymous content is handled through platform legal disclosure requests. Under Indian law and platform policies, we can compel platforms to disclose originator information in defamation cases. In parallel, we can get the content removed regardless of whether the originator's identity is disclosed.

Section 79 of the IT Act 2000 provides "safe harbour" to intermediaries (platforms) from liability for third-party content, but only while they observe due diligence and act on actual knowledge of unlawful content. Since Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015), actual knowledge means a court order or government direction, which a platform must now act on within three hours. A formal notice and grievance complaint start the platform’s own statutory deadlines: seven days, or 36 hours for privacy and impersonation content.

The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules 2021 impose mandatory obligations on significant social media intermediaries — platforms with 5 million+ Indian users. They must appoint grievance officers, resolve takedown requests for specified content types within 36 hours, and provide monthly compliance reports. We use these rules to force rapid response.

Court judgements in the public domain are legally published documents and generally cannot be removed from official legal databases. However, if a judgement appears on a third-party portal or news site with additional defamatory commentary, or if the judgement itself is being misrepresented, we can target those specific URLs and contexts.

Yes. Our process includes filing Google Cache removal requests, Wayback Machine removal notices under their guidelines, and CDN cache clearance. For platforms, we ensure the content is removed from the live URL and de-indexed from all major search engines.

The Right to Be Forgotten (RTbF) is an evolving legal concept in India, increasingly recognised by courts following the EU's GDPR model. It allows individuals to request removal of outdated, irrelevant, or false personal information from search results. RepuLex files RTbF-based petitions before the appropriate courts and directly with platforms where applicable.

Suppression leaves the content live and tries to outrank it. An agency publishes profiles, articles and directory listings until the damaging result slides to page two. Three things follow. It is rented: stop paying and the content climbs back, because nothing about it has changed. It does not work on a determined searcher, who will scroll. And it is close to useless against AI answer engines, which synthesise from the sources they trust rather than reading page one — a single defamatory article can dominate what ChatGPT says about you no matter how much positive content surrounds it. Removal deletes the content at source and removes the search result. Once it is gone there is nothing to suppress, nothing to maintain and nothing to resurface.

Sometimes, but not on the basis that it is defamatory — truth is a defence, and we will not argue otherwise. Other grounds exist and are often the right ones. The Right to Be Forgotten can apply where a matter has concluded and continued publication no longer serves a public interest, which is the usual route for old reporting on a case that ended in acquittal, discharge or settlement. Privacy grounds apply where the material was private regardless of accuracy, which covers the whole leaked-content category. Inaccuracy grounds apply where the reporting was true when published but is now materially misleading — a report of an arrest with no mention of the acquittal that followed. What does not work is asking a publisher to delete accurate reporting on a live matter because it is embarrassing. We will tell you that before taking a fee.

Section 69A empowers the Central Government to direct blocking of content in the interests of sovereignty, security, public order and related grounds. It is a government power, not a private remedy — you cannot invoke it for a defamatory article about your business, and any agency implying it can get your content blocked under 69A is misdescribing what it does. The provisions that carry private matters are Section 79 with the IT Rules 2021, which impose takedown obligations on intermediaries, and Sections 66E, 67 and 67A for privacy and explicit-content offences. We mention 69A only because it is frequently cited loosely in this industry.

Timelines vary by court and by how urgent the matter is on its facts, so anyone quoting you a fixed number is guessing. Genuinely urgent matters — ongoing publication of private material, an imminent transaction — can be moved quickly and interim relief is sometimes granted at the first hearing. Ordinary defamation matters run considerably longer. Court is worth pursuing when a platform has ignored valid notices, when you need the originator restrained rather than just the content removed, or when an order is the only thing a particular host will act on. It is not worth pursuing as a first step, which is why most of our removals conclude without one. Court costs are quoted separately from removal fees and are the client's.

Less than most people expect. To assess a matter we need the URLs and a short account of what is false, private or out of date about them. That is enough for us to tell you whether it is removable, by which route, and at what cost. To act, we need your written instruction and, where the ground is the Right to Be Forgotten or inaccuracy, whatever document establishes it — a closure report, discharge or acquittal order, quashing order, clean chit or recorded settlement. That document is usually decisive, and its absence is usually why a matter fails. We do not require supporting documents before starting work, but we will tell you plainly when a matter cannot succeed without one.

Yes, where the originator is identifiable. We issue a cease-and-desist notice and, in stronger cases, initiate criminal defamation proceedings under IPC Section 500 which carries a two-year imprisonment provision. This creates immediate pressure for retraction and public apology in addition to content removal.

Usually not on defamation grounds, and we will tell you so at assessment rather than after taking a fee. Truth is a defence to defamation in India, so a factually accurate report is not removable simply because it is damaging. Other grounds may still exist and are worth testing: the Right to Be Forgotten where proceedings have concluded or the reporting has become stale, privacy where the material concerns your private life rather than any public interest, inaccuracy where the report is materially wrong even if broadly true, and consent where images or data were published without it. Where none of those apply, the honest answer is that the content stays and the work shifts to what ranks around it. An agency that tells you every true article is removable is selling you a refund cycle.

Suppression is publishing enough new material that the damaging result falls to the second page. The content is untouched: it is still live, still indexed, still reachable by anyone with the link, and still available to an AI answer engine, which does not read page two but does read sources. It also requires a permanent monthly retainer, because the moment the spend stops the ranking reverts. Removal deletes the content at the host and de-indexes the search result, so there is nothing left to resurface and nothing to keep paying for. The test that separates them is simple: after the engagement ends, does the article still exist? With suppression the answer is always yes.

A High Court injunction application is typically heard in weeks rather than days, and an interim order can issue at the first effective hearing where the case is strong. It is worth it when a platform has ignored or refused a valid statutory notice, when the originator needs to be restrained from posting again rather than merely having one URL taken down, or when the content is severe enough that an order is needed to reach a search engine directly. It is not worth it for a single low-traffic listing, where the cost and timeline exceed the harm. We treat court as the escalation behind the notice, not the opening move, because most removals conclude without it.

Section 69A of the IT Act empowers the Central Government to direct blocking of content in the interests of sovereignty, defence, security, public order, or to prevent incitement of a cognisable offence. It is a government power, not a private remedy, so it is not a route an individual or company can invoke to remove commercially damaging content about itself. We mention it because it is frequently misdescribed in the market as something an agency can deploy on your behalf. It cannot. Your routes are the intermediary rules, defamation, privacy and the Right to Be Forgotten, and where those fail, the court.

Less than most people expect. To assess a matter we need the URLs and a short account of what is wrong with them — false, private, stale, or published without consent. That is enough to tell you which are removable and on what ground, before any money changes hands. To act, we additionally need your written authority to represent you, and whatever supporting document underpins the ground being used: a closure report or discharge for a Right to Be Forgotten claim, evidence of the inaccuracy for an inaccuracy claim, or proof of identity where the content concerns you personally. We do not need access to your website, your accounts, or your passwords, and you should be wary of any reputation agency that asks for them.

It is a fair question and the honest answer is that the risk is small but real, and it is one we manage rather than pretend away. The two genuine risks are the Streisand effect, where litigation attracts more attention to the content than it had, and a publisher choosing to report on the fact that removal was sought. Both are far more likely with a public court filing than with a confidential representation, which is one reason the notice route is attempted first and court is treated as escalation. Where we think a matter carries a meaningful backfire risk, we say so before you engage and sometimes advise against acting at all. Removal is not free of downside, and any agency claiming otherwise has not run enough of these.

RepuLex charges ₹99,999 per link removal (single URL). Package pricing: Starter Shield at ₹2,49,999 for 3 links, Business Clear at ₹7,49,999 for 10 links, and Corporate Vault at custom pricing for 25+ links. Emergency fast-track carries a 50% premium. All prices are exclusive of 18% GST. These rates cover standard-complexity removals; news media and court-reported matters are quoted separately, from ₹1,00,000 per URL.

Because almost nothing that makes Indian removals fast applies to them. Coverage of cross-border fraud, financial crime and scam allegations typically sits on foreign news sites, offshore hosts, regulator and enforcement listings, and scam-alert and warning databases — none of which are intermediaries under the IT Rules 2021, so the statutory notice route and its deadlines simply do not reach them. The work becomes multi-jurisdictional: foreign counsel, different defamation standards, and platforms that answer to a regulator rather than to a takedown request. These matters carry a 50% surcharge on the applicable rate, the same premium as emergency handling, and are quoted after assessment rather than from the published packages. We will also tell you where the answer is that a listing cannot be removed at all — a regulator or enforcement notice generally cannot, and no fee changes that.

No. The published packages cover standard-complexity removals — platform content, blogs, business directories, forums, classifieds and review sites. Reporting carried by mainstream national and regional mastheads, coverage of investigations and criminal matters, and judgment listings on legal databases form a separate band, quoted from ₹1,00,000 per URL. That work goes to editorial and legal desks rather than takedown forms, on Right to be Forgotten, inaccuracy or privacy grounds, with a court order as the route where a desk declines. Volume rates apply from 10 URLs. Send us the URLs and we will tell you which band applies before you pay anything.

Each removal involves senior legal counsel review, formal notice drafting, platform legal engagement, court filing if needed, and documentation. Unlike SEO suppression which is automated and cheap, legal removal is counsel-intensive. The fee reflects the permanence — you pay once for a removal that does not reappear.

The fee is payable in full in advance, before work begins. That is what allows senior counsel to be committed to the matter from day one rather than after it escalates. Your protection is the refund commitment rather than a withheld balance: if we do not achieve removal within the timeline agreed for a URL, the fee for that URL is refunded on written request. For engagements where the legal work is executed by our partner law firm, the fee is paid into the law firm's account and the refund is released from there.

We accept bank transfer (NEFT/RTGS/IMPS), UPI, and demand draft. All payments are acknowledged with a formal receipt. GST invoice is issued for every transaction.

You get the fee back. If removal is not achieved through our initial legal process, we first escalate to court proceedings at no extra professional fee (statutory filing fees are separate and only ever incurred with your prior written approval). If the URL is still not removed within the timeline agreed for it, the fee for that URL is refunded on written request. We do not bill for failed attempts, and we would rather return the money than argue about it.

Yes, in two situations. If we do not remove a URL within the timeline agreed for it, the entire fee for that URL is refunded on written request — even where a platform, publisher or court simply refuses to act, because that is our risk to carry rather than yours, and our own view that removal is still achievable does not reduce it once the timeline has expired. And if we assess a matter as not legally actionable, whether before starting or partway through, we refund in full and tell you so rather than spending your money finding out. There is one reduced case: if you withdraw instructions while the agreed timeline is still running, 75% is refunded and 25% is retained for work already performed. That is a cancellation charge rather than a cut to the commitment above — once the deadline passes you receive 100%. Refunds are calculated per URL and processed within 4 working hours of a written request. Set out at clause 4.5 of our engagement terms; it applies by default to every engagement.

If the same URL reappears after confirmed removal, we address it at no additional charge as a case continuation. However, if new content with different URLs is posted, that constitutes a new case. Our post-removal monitoring (available as add-on) detects re-uploads and alerts you immediately.

No. RepuLex is built on transparency — we are the only ORM firm in India to publish full pricing. The quoted fee covers legal notices, platform engagement, our professional fees for court escalation where it is needed, and documented removal confirmation. The only separate items on any plan are statutory court filing fees and out-of-pocket disbursements, and those are incurred only with your prior written approval — never added to an invoice unannounced.

Yes — our package plans are structured precisely for this. Starter Shield (3 links at ₹2,49,999) and Business Clear (10 links at ₹7,49,999) offer significantly lower per-link costs than single-URL pricing. For 25+ links, Corporate Vault pricing is custom and volume-negotiated.

No. Matters involving leaked intimate images or videos are handled on the emergency track as standard, at standard rates, with no urgency premium. The statutory removal window in that category is two hours, so treating it as urgent is not a service upgrade we could reasonably charge for — it is simply what the work is. We also think charging someone a premium because they are frightened and in a hurry is the wrong way to run this. Where the content has mirrored across many hosts, the matter is quoted as a sweep rather than per URL, which is usually cheaper than per-URL pricing rather than more expensive.

Removal engagements are paid 100% in advance — that is the model, and the refund commitment at clause 4.5 of our terms is your protection rather than a withheld balance. For larger multi-phase or retainer programmes (corporate mandates, monthly monitoring), the engagement letter may record a phase schedule, in which case each phase is itself paid in advance before that phase begins. You will see the schedule, what has been received against it, and what remains, on your own agreement link — and a receipt is emailed for every payment. Single-URL matters are paid in one advance instalment; splitting a fee of that size creates more administration than it saves anyone.

Published rates are exclusive of GST, which is charged additionally at the prevailing rate on RepuLex agency fees. Where the regulated legal work on an engagement is executed by our partner law firm and fees are paid into that firm's account, the position differs: advocate services to a body corporate fall under reverse charge, meaning the GST liability may sit with you rather than being collected by the firm. We flag this rather than state it flatly, because the treatment depends on your own registration status — have your finance team or CA confirm it before you budget. We would rather you check than be surprised on an invoice.

Yes, provided the company is genuinely the client and the content concerns the company or its officers in that capacity. The engagement letter, the invoice and the authority to act must name the same party, because the representation we make to a platform is on behalf of whoever holds the right being asserted. Where the content concerns you personally and the invoice is to a company for tax reasons alone, tell us at the outset so the paperwork is structured properly. Mismatched authority is a common reason a platform rejects an otherwise valid notice.

Court filing fees and any out-of-pocket disbursements are separate and are only incurred with your prior written approval — you will never find them added to an invoice unannounced. Content creation, SEO, social media management and PR distribution are separate services and are not bundled into a removal fee. Removal of a URL that emerges after the engagement is a fresh matter, though a URL that reappears after a confirmed removal is handled as a continuation at no extra charge. Everything within the removal scope — assessment, drafting, the notice under advocate signature, platform engagement, de-indexing and written confirmation — is inside the quoted fee.

Yes. We remove content from the source platform first, then file a Google de-index request to remove the URL from search results. We also use Google's legal removal request tools for defamatory content and court-ordered removals. De-indexing is verified and documented.

Yes. For Google reviews, we use Google's legal removal process backed by IT Act notices. For JustDial and Zomato, we issue notices under IT (Intermediary Guidelines) Rules 2021 compelling them to investigate and remove false or defamatory reviews. Competitors-planted fake reviews are a specific area of strength.

Yes. We issue formal defamation notices to the portal's editor and registered office, supported by IPC 499/500 and IT Act provisions. Most portals comply within 7–21 days. For non-compliant portals, we escalate to court proceedings and injunctions. We have successfully removed content from major English and vernacular news portals.

Yes. Glassdoor reviews by anonymous users can be challenged through formal legal disclosure requests and defamation proceedings. While Glassdoor as a US company has specific processes, our legal route combines Indian law notices with Glassdoor's own legal removal request procedures for false and defamatory content.

Yes. For Meta platforms (Facebook, Instagram) and X, we use the IT (Intermediary Guidelines) Rules 2021 pathway, which requires a grievance to be resolved within 36 hours for privacy, impersonation and other listed content, and within seven days otherwise. We engage their dedicated legal/trust-and-safety teams directly. Fake profiles are additionally reported for impersonation.

Yes. We use a combination of copyright notices (DMCA) where applicable, IT Act notices for defamatory content, and YouTube's legal removal request system. For Indian content creators with identifiable channels, we also issue direct defamation notices.

Yes. Consumer complaint portals publishing false or defamatory content are subject to IT Act notices. We issue notices to MouthShut, Consumer Complaints, Voxya, and similar platforms. For content that misrepresents facts, we simultaneously pursue the originator under defamation law.

This is one of our specialist services. While WhatsApp messages themselves are end-to-end encrypted, the damage typically comes from screenshots and videos posted on public platforms (Twitter/X, Facebook, YouTube). We address the public-platform spread through standard legal routes and issue notices to the originator under IT Act Section 66C/66D where applicable.

Yes. Quora and Reddit have legal removal processes for defamatory content in their country-specific operations. LinkedIn follows IT Act guidelines for significant platforms. We issue notices and engage their legal teams. Content that identifies individuals falsely is particularly actionable.

Yes, and it is now one of the most common reasons executives call us. AI answer engines do not store a profile of you that can be edited — they synthesise an answer from sources they trust. So the fix is at the source: we audit what each model currently says, trace every damaging claim back to the pages feeding it, then remove the false sources through the legal route, correct the inaccurate ones with the publishers, and build authoritative structured data — Schema.org markup, Wikidata, Knowledge Panel, and consistent references across the web — until the synthesised answer matches reality. Expect this to take longer than a search removal, because models retrain on their own schedule and an answer can lag its sources by months. Anyone offering to edit what ChatGPT says about you directly is selling something that does not exist.

Often, though it works differently from removing a page. Autocomplete is generated from search behaviour rather than published anywhere, so there is no document to take down. Two things shift it: removing the underlying content driving the query, since the suggestion usually persists because articles keep feeding it, and a direct legal representation to Google where the suggestion is defamatory or connects a name to an offence. Indian courts have entertained claims on autocomplete suggestions that carry a defamatory imputation. It is slower and less certain than URL removal, and we say so at assessment rather than after.

Yes, and this is a distinct service from removal. A Knowledge Panel is assembled from sources Google treats as authoritative — Wikipedia, Wikidata, official sites, structured data and news coverage. Correcting it means correcting those inputs and, where you are eligible, claiming the panel so change requests carry weight. Where the panel is pulling from a defamatory article, removal of that article is the first step. Where it is simply outdated or has merged you with someone else, it is a data problem rather than a legal one and is usually faster to fix.

Yes, and there are two separate jobs. The image sits on a host page, and it also appears in the image index. Removing the host page usually clears the index entry in time, but the two are handled separately when the page cannot be removed or the image is mirrored across sites. Where the image is intimate or was obtained without consent, the two-hour route under IT Rules 2021 Rule 3(2)(b) applies and is far faster than an ordinary request. Where the image is simply unflattering but lawfully published, be aware that no removal ground may exist — we will tell you that rather than take the fee.

Sometimes, and this is one of the harder categories, so it is worth being direct. Judgments are public records and legal databases largely reproduce them as published by the courts, which means there is no defamation ground and the databases resist removal on principle. What works, where it works, is a Right to Be Forgotten application supported by the outcome — an acquittal, discharge or quashing order — and in appropriate cases a direction from the court that pronounced the judgment to redact the name. Indian High Courts have granted such relief, particularly where a person was acquitted and continued indexing causes ongoing harm. De-indexing from search engines is often achievable even where the database itself will not remove the listing, and for most clients that solves the practical problem. We will not promise this category at the same confidence as a platform removal.

Yes, and impersonation is among the more straightforward categories because it is expressly covered. IT Rules 2021 Rule 3(2)(b) applies a two-hour removal obligation to content that is impersonation in electronic form, including morphed images. Platforms also maintain their own impersonation reporting routes, which work reasonably well when the request is properly evidenced with identity proof. Where the profile is being used for fraud or extortion, an FIR alongside the removal request materially improves the response and creates the basis to pursue the person behind it.

Yes. The Internet Archive (archive.org) has an exclusion process for removal of archived content when the live content has been removed or where the content infringes rights. We file these notices as a standard part of our removal process to ensure cached versions do not persist.

Yes, though not by editing the model. An AI answer is synthesised from sources, so the work is to find which sources are feeding the false claim and act on those: remove the ones that are false and removable, correct the ones that are inaccurate, and build authoritative structured data — Schema.org markup, Wikidata, a Knowledge Panel — so the model has something better to draw on. We audit what each major engine currently says about you, map every harmful claim to its source, then work the sources. Changes propagate as models refresh rather than instantly, so this is a matter of weeks, not hours. Anyone offering to edit what an AI says about you directly does not understand how these systems work.

Sometimes, and the mechanism is indirect. Autocomplete suggestions are generated from search behaviour and are not entries anyone can edit. Google does remove predictions that are defamatory, that concern a named individual and a serious crime, or that are otherwise policy-violating, and those are reportable and removable. Where the suggestion is driven by genuine search volume around a live story, removal is unlikely and the effective route is removing the underlying content the suggestion points to — once the results behind a prediction go, the prediction usually follows. We will tell you which of the two situations yours is before you engage.

Correcting is realistic; deleting usually is not. A Knowledge Panel is assembled from sources Google trusts about an entity, so the route is to claim the panel where you are the subject, submit corrections with evidence, and strengthen the underlying entity signals — Wikidata, structured data on your own site, consistent citations across authoritative sources — until the panel reflects reality. Where the panel surfaces a false or outdated fact, that is fixable. Where it accurately reflects widely-reported information you would prefer removed, the panel is a symptom and the work belongs upstream at the sources.

Yes, and it is routinely missed. Images are indexed independently of the page carrying them, so a removed article can leave its photograph live in image search, and a deleted video can leave its thumbnail. Removal at the host does not automatically clear either. We file image de-indexing alongside the page removal and verify both, and where the image is a private or intimate one, the dedicated non-consensual imagery route applies and is faster than the ordinary process.

Impersonation is one of the more straightforward categories. Every major platform prohibits it and will act on a report from the person being impersonated, usually quickly and with nothing more than proof of identity. Under the IT Rules 2021 impersonation in electronic form — including morphed images — falls inside the two-hour removal obligation, the same accelerated window that applies to intimate content. Where the account is being used for fraud, a police complaint alongside the takedown is worth filing, because the account will otherwise reappear under a new handle and the report history matters.

Yes. These are intermediaries under Indian law like any other platform, and most of what appears on them in these matters — a fake profile, a photograph used without consent, a defamatory review of a candidate or employer — is squarely within their own policies as well as the statutory route. They tend to be more responsive than news publishers because there is no editorial interest to weigh. Where the listing includes your photographs, the image de-indexing point applies as well: get the profile removed and the images cleared, not just the profile.

Timeline varies by platform and legal route. Grievance complaints to large social media platforms: 36 hours to seven days, by statute. Google review removal: 7–21 days. News portals: 7–30 days. Glassdoor: 21–45 days. Consumer complaint sites: 14–30 days. Court order cases: 30–90 days. Emergency fast-track handles critical cases in 24–72 hours.

Yes. RepuLex removes content permanently — not suppresses it temporarily. We obtain written confirmation from the platform's legal or trust-and-safety team and verify Google de-indexing. Once removed under a legal notice or court order, the content cannot be legally re-posted by the same party without facing legal consequences.

Our current case success rate is 97%. The 3% of cases where full removal is not achieved typically involve jurisdictional challenges with offshore platforms or content that is partially accurate (which limits legal grounds). In all cases, we exhaust every available legal route before closing a case.

You receive: (1) Written confirmation letter from the platform's legal/trust-and-safety team; (2) Screenshot of the URL returning 404/removed; (3) Google de-index verification; (4) Case file including all notices sent and responses received. This documentation can be used in future legal proceedings if the content reappears.

After engagement, you receive a case number and direct contact details for your assigned legal team member. Progress updates are sent at each stage: notice issued, platform response received, escalation if needed, and confirmation of removal. For Business Clear and Corporate Vault plans, a dedicated case manager handles all communication.

In emergency cases, we pursue interim relief — interim injunctions from courts that can temporarily restrain further distribution while the main legal proceedings continue. This is particularly relevant for viral content or pre-publication injunctions in cases where we become aware of imminent false reporting.

Because the route differs, not the effort. A statutory notice to a compliant intermediary over clearly unlawful content is the fast case, and the two-hour category under Rule 3(2)(b) is faster still because the deadline is written into the rules. A mainstream news publisher is the slow case: the request goes to an editorial and legal desk that will consider it on the merits, take its time, and sometimes decline — which is why news and court-reported matters are quoted separately and carry longer timelines. Offshore hosts, legal databases and anything needing a court order sit at the far end. At assessment we tell you which band each of your URLs falls into, so the timeline is set before you pay rather than discovered afterwards.

Tell us the date at the first conversation, because it changes the strategy rather than just the urgency. With a hard deadline we sequence differently: the URLs that actually surface in a due-diligence or name search are worked first, the fast statutory routes are run in parallel rather than in sequence, and anything requiring a court order is either started immediately or set aside as unachievable in the window. Emergency fast-track carries a 50% premium and buys dedicated allocation and one-hour response. What we will not do is accept a deadline we do not think is achievable and hope. If your date is unrealistic for the content you have, we will say so and tell you what can realistically be cleared by then.

Re-posting after a legal notice constitutes contempt of the notice and a fresh actionable offence. In such cases, we escalate to criminal defamation proceedings under IPC Section 500, which can result in imprisonment up to two years. This legal consequence effectively deters repeat behaviour in most cases.

The variable is who has to say yes. Platform content — a review, a forum post, a directory listing — goes to an intermediary bound by the IT Rules and a statutory clock, and those resolve fastest. Intimate imagery and morphed-image impersonation carry a two-hour statutory obligation and are faster still. News reporting is the slow end: it goes to an editorial or legal desk that will consider it on the merits, may come back with questions, and is under no equivalent deadline. Court-reported matters and legal-database listings are slower again. Where a desk declines and the route becomes a court order, add weeks. At assessment we tell you which band each of your URLs sits in, so the timeline is set before you pay rather than explained afterwards.

We can commit to a timeline for a URL and put our fee behind it, which is a different and more useful thing than promising an outcome. At assessment we will tell you honestly whether your date is realistic for each URL. Where it is, the date becomes the Agreed Removal Timeline in your engagement letter, and if we miss it the fee for that URL is refunded. Where it is not — a national masthead three days before a board meeting, for instance — we will say so rather than take the money and hope. Deadline-driven matters are exactly where agencies over-promise, and the refund is what keeps us honest about it.

First response within the hour rather than the working day, a dedicated escalation path, simultaneous action across platforms instead of sequential, and court application readiness held in reserve so a filing can move immediately if a platform refuses. It carries a 50% premium and it is worth it for a live viral cycle, an imminent transaction or an election window. It is not worth it for a single stale article, and we will say so. Leaked intimate content is handled on this track as standard at no premium — see the pricing section.

No. Removal acts on third-party pages and on the search index entries for them, not on your own website, so nothing about your site's technical health, backlinks or rankings is touched. The usual effect on a branded search for your name is positive: removing a damaging result promotes everything below it. The one genuine consideration is what fills the space — if a removed result leaves a gap and nothing authoritative ranks behind it, another third-party page moves up. That is why removal and building what should rank in its place are usually sequenced together rather than treated as alternatives.

You get written confirmation rather than an assurance. For each URL we provide the platform's own removal confirmation where one is issued, verification that the page returns a dead response, and verification that the search result has been de-indexed — checked from outside our own network, because a page can be live for the world and unreachable from one datacentre. That documentation forms the case file delivered at the end of the engagement. Where monitoring is in place you also get an alert if anything reappears, rather than finding out yourself months later.

Completely confidential. We execute a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) before any case discussion. Your identity, the URL in question, and all case details are shared only with the legal team members directly working on your case. We do not publish case studies with identifiable information without explicit written consent.

Legal notices are issued in the name of RepuLex on your behalf. The notice will not disclose that you engaged us — it will reference the content in question and the legal grounds for removal. In cases requiring court proceedings, your name may appear as the complainant, but we can in many cases structure proceedings to minimise public exposure.

Yes. We collect only the information necessary to process your case. We do not store case details beyond the duration of the case plus a standard legal retention period. We do not share client information with third parties, including platforms, beyond what is legally necessary for the notice.

No. We do not post about client cases on any platform without explicit written consent. Our case studies are entirely anonymised, with all identifying details — names, URLs, industry, city — changed or omitted. Client confidentiality is a non-negotiable operating principle.

Yes, and before any detailed case discussion rather than after you have committed. You should not have to describe what happened to you in order to find out whether we will protect it. The NDA is mutual, covers the existence of the engagement as well as its contents, and survives the end of the matter. If you would prefer to work under your own NDA or your counsel's, send it and we will sign that instead.

It is retained only as long as there is a reason to keep it. Case files, correspondence with platforms and removal confirmations are held for the period needed to support the outcome, including if content reappears and the matter is reopened, and to meet the partner law firm's own record-keeping obligations. Content you sent us — images, videos, documents — is deleted on request at any time, including during the matter, and you can ask us in writing to confirm exactly what we hold. We do not use client material in case studies, testimonials, proposals or marketing. Where we publish outcomes, identities and URLs are stripped.

We operate on the DPDP Act 2023 framework: personal data is collected for the specific purpose of the engagement, processed on your consent, limited to what the work requires, and deleted on request where no legal obligation requires retention. You have the right to know what we hold, to have it corrected, and to withdraw consent. In DPDP terms you are the Data Principal and we are the Data Fiduciary for the material you give us. The full statement is in our privacy policy, and any request under it goes to hello@repulex.com.

Public figures retain the right to removal of false and defamatory content, though the legal threshold is slightly different. Truthful criticism of a public figure in their public capacity is generally protected. However, false statements of fact, fabricated content, morphed images, and content targeting private life are all actionable regardless of public figure status.

Yes, and before any detailed case discussion rather than after. You do not have to describe your matter to us in order to get an NDA in place — tell us you want one first and we will execute it, then talk. It is mutual, it covers the existence of the engagement as well as its contents, and it survives the end of the matter. For sensitive categories we treat it as the default rather than something you have to ask for.

Case files are retained only for as long as there is a reason to hold them — principally the possibility of the content reappearing, which is what makes a continuation claim possible, and any statutory or professional record-keeping obligation on the partner law firm. Beyond that you may ask us in writing at any time to confirm what we hold and to delete it, and we will do so and confirm in writing. We do not sell, share or repurpose client data, and nothing from your matter is used in marketing, case studies or testimonials without your specific written consent.

Yes. Under the Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023 we act as a data fiduciary in respect of the personal data you provide, which means processing it only for the purpose you gave it, keeping it no longer than that purpose requires, securing it, and honouring your rights of access, correction and erasure. In practice that maps onto how the work already runs: we ask for the minimum needed to act, we do not require access to your accounts or credentials, and we delete on request. If you want the detail in writing before engaging, ask and we will provide it.

Only by a court, and we will tell you if that ever happens. Confidentiality obligations are strong but they are not absolute against a lawful order — no honest agency can promise otherwise, and one that does is telling you something it cannot deliver. What we can say is that we do not disclose voluntarily, we do not confirm or deny client relationships to journalists or third parties, and where the regulated legal work runs through our partner law firm, communications with its advocates carry professional privilege in addition to contractual confidentiality.

The case lead, the advocate at the partner law firm handling the legal step, and no one else by default. Access is by need rather than by seniority, files are not circulated internally for interest, and sensitive material is not stored on personal devices. For matters where discretion is the point — leaked content, investigations, executive matters — the working group is deliberately kept to the smallest number of people who can actually do the work, and you can ask us at any time who that is.