Seven of eight targeted sources complied
Source-removal requests and a separate search strategy addressed different parts of a legal-record visibility problem.
Targeted third-party sources complied with removal requests
The client’s challenge
A regulated-industry professional had court-related material and legal coverage appearing in name searches. The mix of third-party listings and material that could not be removed required a realistic plan.
The work
The program assessed the sources and pursued eligible removal requests. In parallel, accurate professional information and a search-visibility strategy addressed material that remained. Monitoring continued after the initial requests.
Progress at a glance
| Stage / measure | Recorded detail |
|---|---|
| Source scope | 8 targeted third-party court-document sources |
| Removal responses | 7 of those 8 sources complied |
| About 12 months | Recorded first-page suppression milestone |
| Remaining exposure | Legal material continued on secondary results pages |
The outcome
Seven of eight targeted sources complied with removal requests. Separately, the engagement reached a first-page suppression milestone at approximately twelve months.
What this means for a similar case
Removal and suppression should be measured separately: a source response and a ranking change are different outcomes.
The 7-of-8 result applies to the targeted third-party sources. Official court records were not expunged, and some legal material remained on later results pages. These anonymized cases draw on Chad’s client work across his career, including work before Reputation Repair. Results reflect the searches and period described and can change.
Start with a Reputation Audit.
Understand what Google and AI searches show about you and your business.