Who we serve
Public Figures
Your record is permanently public and it is going to stay that way. The achievable objective is proportion and context, rather than disappearance, which is not available to you and which no competent firm should offer.
Public figures have the hardest version of this problem and the clearest one. Hardest because the legal protections are weakest, since the actual malice standard is a substantial barrier, platform policies that protect private individuals frequently exclude you, and legitimate news coverage of your work is not going anywhere. Clearest because that constraint eliminates the options that waste other clients' money.
The work is therefore proportion. A public record is going to contain the difficult episodes; the question is whether it contains everything else at comparable weight. Where a career of substance is represented online primarily by its worst two weeks, the correction is not removal. It is supplying the rest of the record with enough authority to be read alongside.
Context is the second half. A great deal of what damages public figures is technically accurate and materially misleading: a quotation stripped of its question, a settlement described without its terms, a decade-old position presented as current. None of that is removable and all of it is addressable by making the fuller version equally findable.
The AI dimension has become acute here. Models compress narrative badly, and for a person with a large public record they tend to compress toward the most distinctive episode rather than the most representative one. A model summarizing a thirty-year career in three sentences will often choose the three sentences you would not.
What is different here
Why this situation does not behave like the others.
Weaker legal protection
Actual malice standards and reduced platform protections. The available levers are editorial and structural rather than legal.
Permanent public record
The material is not going away. Planning as though it might is how engagements fail.
Volume is the condition
A large existing record means the work is about weighting rather than about creating material from nothing.
Accurate but misleading is the norm
Stripped quotations, missing outcomes, outdated positions presented as current.
Models compress badly
AI summaries of long public careers gravitate to the most distinctive episode, not the most representative.
Litigation is a visibility decision
Filing creates a durable public record. That trade-off has to be quantified before it is made.
What usually applies
The mechanisms most often used in these matters.
Which of these applies to you, and in what order, is the substance of the assessment rather than something to select from a list.
Earned Authority
Substantive published work that supplies the rest of the record at comparable weight to the difficult parts.
AI Answer Correction
Where model summaries of a long career are unrepresentative or are omitting resolutions and outcomes.
Presence Architecture
Entity resolution so that a large body of work accrues to you coherently rather than in fragments.
Search Suppression
Restoring proportion in position, where the material itself is permanent.
Monitoring
Old material resurfaces on anniversaries and whenever an algorithm changes. Detection buys response time.
Questions we are asked
- Can you remove old news coverage about me?
- What is sometimes achievable is an appended correction or an update reflecting a later outcome, and that is frequently more valuable than removal would have been, because a visible resolution beats a gap. Legitimate news organizations do not remove accurate reporting, and we say so in the first conversation rather than after a retainer.
- Everything about me online is from one incident. Is that fixable?
- It is the most common public-figure matter and the most tractable. The material stays; what changes is whether it appears alongside a substantial record of everything else. That takes months and it works.
- Should I sue over a false statement?
- That is a question for your attorney, and we do not answer it. What we will do is quantify the visibility litigation itself will generate, which for a public figure is usually substantial and is regularly underestimated.
- Can you fix my Wikipedia entry?
- What we can do is establish that the reliable sources it draws on are accurate, which is the route its own editors are meant to follow. We do not edit entries directly: Wikipedia has conflict-of-interest rules, and undisclosed editing is both against policy and independently damaging when it is discovered.
- What does this cost?
- The fee is stated in a written proposal before any work begins, scoped to what the assessment finds. How that is arrived at is set out in full on the How We Work page.
Before you engage
Where the limits are.
Legitimate journalism about your public role is not removable, and requests to suppress accurate reporting on a public figure's public conduct are declined here. What we build instead is the rest of the record, at comparable weight and with comparable authority.
The legal route is narrower for you: public-figure standards raise the bar considerably, and litigation generates its own permanent searchable record, frequently larger than the original item. Where you are weighing it, we quantify that second record so the decision is made with both numbers.
A record cannot be restored to what it was before an episode. Proportion is achievable and erasure is not, so proportion is what the engagement is scoped to deliver.
Tell us where you are.
One conversation, in confidence, with an honest reading of what can be changed, including when the answer is that nothing needs to be.