Real outcomes for real businesses

A dental clinic with a strong local reputation was hit by a wave of fake reviews from non-patients. Their rating dropped from 4.6 to 2.8 over six weeks, causing a significant decline in new patient bookings.

Our analysts reviewed the clinic's entire review profile, identifying 47 reviews with no patient records, duplicate content patterns, and accounts created within the same 48-hour window. Each was documented with screenshots and matched to specific Google review policy violations before submission through official reporting tools.

Of the 47 disputed reviews, 31 were successfully removed by Google after policy review. The clinic's rating recovered from 2.8 to 4.6 over the following three months, and new patient inquiries returned to pre-attack levels.

A multi-location fitness franchise was targeted by a coordinated review bombing campaign, likely orchestrated by a competitor. Over 60 fake 1-star reviews appeared across three locations within one week, all from accounts with no check-in history.

We identified the coordinated pattern — reviews shared similar language, were posted in rapid succession, and came from accounts with no prior activity. Each review was individually documented with evidence of the coordinated attack pattern and submitted as a bulk policy violation report.

62 spam reviews were reported through official channels. 48 were removed by the platform after review. The franchise's aggregate rating stabilized and the coordinated attack pattern was flagged for platform-level monitoring.

A boutique hotel group noticed an influx of reviews that violated platform content policies — including off-topic rants, abusive language, and personally identifiable information about staff members. These reviews were not necessarily fake, but they clearly violated published platform guidelines.

We assessed each review against the platform's specific content policies, documenting exact policy violations: prohibited language, off-topic content, and personal information disclosures. Each dispute case was tailored to the specific policy term being violated.

23 reviews were disputed with detailed policy violation documentation. 19 were resolved — either removed or edited by the platform to comply with content guidelines. The hotel group's review profile became cleaner and more representative of actual guest experiences.

An independent auto repair shop received a mix of reviews after a pricing dispute with a customer. Some were genuine negative feedback about the experience, while others were fake reviews from the customer's associates. The owner needed to address the fakes without suppressing legitimate criticism.

We carefully separated the reviews into two categories: 15 fake reviews from non-customers with no transaction history, and 8 genuine negative reviews from actual customers. We only prepared dispute cases for the 15 fake reviews, and advised the owner to respond professionally to the 8 genuine reviews.

Of the 15 fake reviews disputed, 11 were removed. The 8 genuine negative reviews remained, but the owner's professional responses demonstrated accountability. The shop's rating stabilized at 4.1 — not artificially inflated, but no longer dragged down by fake reviews.