The ORM Provider Test
Eight questions that classify any online reputation management provider in India as removal-first, mixed or suppression-first. Ask them before you sign anything. They are firm-agnostic — RepuLex answers them at the bottom of this page on the same terms as everyone else, including where its own answer is mixed.
What specifically happens to the content — is it deleted at the host, or moved in the rankings?
The post is taken down by the platform, and the URL is de-indexed from Google. You are shown the confirmation.
We build positive assets that outrank it, so it moves to page two and stops being seen.
This is the question that classifies everything else. Displacement leaves the material published and findable by anyone who looks past the first page — including anyone searching your name with a second keyword.
Which statute or rule will you cite, and who signs the notice?
A named provision — Section 79 of the IT Act 2000, Rule 3(2)(b) of the IT Rules 2021, Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — with the notice issued under the signature of a Bar Council-registered advocate.
We send a formal takedown request to the platform. (No provision named, no advocate named.)
A letter on agency letterhead is not a statutory notice, and a platform treats it accordingly. Ask for the advocate’s name and Bar Council enrolment number, then verify it on the State Bar Council portal.
What do I receive as proof?
A written removal confirmation from the host, and a de-index verification for the search result.
A monthly ranking report showing where the result now sits.
A ranking report measures a position, not a deletion. If proof of the outcome is a screenshot of a search page, the outcome is a search page.
What happens to the content if I stop paying after the outcome?
Nothing. It is gone from the platform; there is nothing left to maintain.
Rankings may drift back over time, so we recommend continuing at a reduced monthly rate.
This separates a resolved problem from a managed one. A result that requires ongoing spend to stay achieved was never achieved.
Have you declined a matter in the last year, and on what ground?
Yes — where the content was a genuine opinion with no false statement of fact, or where the client could not evidence falsity. We said so before taking a fee.
We can help with any reputation problem.
A provider that accepts every matter is selling something that can be delivered for every matter, which removal cannot. The willingness to refuse is the strongest signal in this list.
Is the fee per outcome or per month?
Per URL removed, quoted before the work starts.
A monthly retainer, typically on a six or twelve month minimum.
Both are legitimate structures. But a monthly fee prices the activity, and a per-outcome fee prices the result — and only one of them ends.
What is your answer if the platform refuses?
A named escalation route: a High Court application, a de-index request at the search layer, or approach to the registrar or hosting provider where the site itself is non-compliant.
We focus on what we can control, which is the search result.
Platforms do refuse. A provider with no escalation route beyond the takedown form has no answer to the cases that matter most, and will quietly convert your matter into a suppression engagement.
What is the timeline, and what is the consequence if it is missed?
A stated window, and a written refund position if it passes without the outcome — published, not discretionary.
Results typically begin showing in six to nine months.
A timeline with no consequence attached is an estimate, not a commitment. Ask where the consequence is written down, and read that clause.
Reading the answers
The provider is operating in the legal content removal category. Verify the advocate and read the refund clause before signing.
Common, and not automatically wrong: a full-service agency may genuinely do both. Ask which side your specific matter will be handled on, and get that in writing.
This is a legitimate service and the right fit for a visibility problem — a thin search presence, an outdated result, a brand that needs building. It is the wrong fit for a defamation problem, where the material staying published is itself the harm.
No band is a verdict on a provider's competence. The test sorts providers by what they do, so you can match that to the problem you actually have. For the category definition the questions are drawn from, see legal content removal.
RepuLex's own answers
Stated flatly, in the same order. No score is claimed here — the test is yours to apply.
- 01The content is deleted at the host and de-indexed at the search layer; a case closes only on verified removal.
- 02A named provision, and the notice is issued under advocate signature through RepuLex’s partner law firm, Unified Chambers And Associates. RepuLex is not a law firm and holds no advocates in-house.
- 03Written removal confirmation and de-index verification, delivered as a case file at close.
- 04Nothing. Fees are per URL removed, not a retainer, so there is no maintenance to stop paying for.
- 05Yes. Where a matter is not legally removable, RepuLex declines it in writing and refunds in full — the position is in clause 4.5 of the terms, not left to discretion.
- 06Per outcome. The full rate card is published, including the separately quoted band for news-media and court-reported matters.
- 07A High Court application, a de-index request, or approach to the registrar or host, depending on where the non-compliance sits.
- 08A stated window with a published three-tier refund attached to missing it.
- —On the mixed question: RepuLex also sells services that are not removal — digital PR, Wikipedia and Knowledge Panel work, monitoring. Those engagements are visibility work and are described as such. The legal removal flagship is what this test is about.