URLs which, of course, has the effect of restoring de-indexed URLs.Let's be clear: Fraudulently obtained court orders are a VERY serious (and growing) problem, not just for Ripoff Report, but for all websites that host potentially negative speech.” It looks like this answer provides an argument as to why they should make such URL changes. Without directly stating "yes" or "no", Ripoff Report seems to indicate that if we changed URLs to restore our de-indexed pages in search results, we would be justified in doing so, as some removal orders were obtained by defrauding the courts . Beebe then provided a
description and a link to a blog post by attorney Paul Levy who, along with Eugene Volokh, had investigated a number of questionable court-ordered content removals. He wrote about how a reputable black hat business operator settled lawsuits jewelry retouching service against him and agreed to have fraudulently obtained court orders overturned. As I described in my previous article, “Paradigm Shift: Has Google Paused Defamation Takedowns?”, there has indeed been abuse of process by some online reputation agencies and companies.
lawyers. If a particular URL removal was later found to be unwarranted due to a fraudulent court order, I would imagine Google would be willing to restore it. But I imagine the proper process would be for a site to send Google a request to restore the URL, rather than trying to manipulate and dodge Google's systems. Since Ripoff Report does not directly accept or reject my assertion that they changed URLs for this purpose, it is unclear how they determined when to use the change URL technique. Based on my knowledge of the perfectly legitimate Revenge Porn Client case, it appears that