Since 1998, we've been eliminating digital attacks — before they cost you revenue.
A domain is registered, your logo, company name and address are copied, a form asks for login or payment details. The order matters — secure first, then report.
Check now ->Competitors book ads on your brand name, ads lead to unrelated sites, your budget is drained by automated clicks. In all three cases, evidence is what decides the outcome.
Prove click fraud →The strongest trust factor before first contact — and therefore the most rewarding point of attack. Removal succeeds reliably when a violation of platform guidelines can be proven.
Recognize the pattern →Mass-built spam links, copied content, artificial search queries. The first step is never defense, but distinguishing: attack or algorithm update.
Attack or update? →ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini and Claude answer questions about your company using sources they select themselves. What gets corrected isn't the AI answer, but the source it came from.
Source, not answer →A competitor copies your page, backdates the copy and reports your real page to Google as a copyright violation. Deindexing often happens within hours, without any content review.
Prepare a counter-notification →A single page that ranks well for a competitive keyword gets reported to Google over an alleged copyright violation. Google frequently removes the page from search results within hours, without any content review. The accusation is fabricated, but the effect is real.
The process follows a fixed pattern: the attacker copies the target page's full content, technically prepares the copy so it appears older than the original, and files a copyright complaint under the US DMCA on this basis. Responsibility for the accuracy of the claim lies solely with the person filing the report.
The asymmetry is significant: removal takes hours, while restoration via a counter-notification takes weeks. However, a closer look at the legal situation shows that the risk lies with the attacker, not the affected party — both under US liability for damages per DMCA § 512(f) and under German competition law for targeted obstruction per § 4 No. 4 UWG.
Stopping an attack and identifying its originator are two different goals with very different chances of success. Anyone who collapses both into a single number is promising something they can't deliver.
| Goal | Time Until Effect Is Visible | Requirement |
|---|---|---|
| Browser warning against a clone site active worldwide | 2 to 12 hours | Report to browser vendors on the same day |
| Clone domain suspended | 1 to 5 days | Registrar and registry contacted in parallel, correct report category |
| Abusive ad stopped | 1 to 10 days | Documented pattern evidence, not just a screenshot |
| Fake review removed | 3 to 21 days | Provable policy violation |
| Technical infrastructure behind the attack identified | Roughly two out of three cases | Evidence secured before takedown |
| Incorrect claim removed from AI answers | 2 to 8 weeks | Correction at the source, then re-evaluation by the system |
| Page back in Google's index after a fake DMCA notice | A few days to several weeks | Properly formatted counter-notification, followed by the filing deadline for the reporting party |
Brand Abuse.
Whether it's a cloned website, fake reviews, or ads running on your brand name: we secure the evidence, stop the attack through the correct reporting channels, and hand over a court-ready package to your lawyer and the authorities. Our approach is documented, traceable, and monitored for repeat attempts — not just a one-time reaction.
Evidence secured before anything is reported. The complete state of the site, ad, or review with timestamps and checksums, in a form that holds up in court.
ImmediatelyAll effective reporting channels pursued in parallel, in the correct category. The category determines the processing deadline, not the wording.
Day 1–3Analysis of publicly available data sources on the infrastructure behind the attack, documented and traceable.
Running in parallelA prepared evidence package for your lawyer and for the investigating authorities, with a timeline, checksums, and any running deadlines.
As neededOngoing monitoring for repeat attempts: new domain registrations using your brand name, ads on your brand, review patterns, and how AI systems source information about you.
ContinuousWe are not lawyers and do not provide legal advice. We do not manage ad accounts and do not conduct security audits of your infrastructure. What we deliver is evidence, containment, and a handover to the parties who take the next step — at a quality that makes that step possible.
"I wouldn't have thought that a strategic approach could bring about such change and such positive results in our visibility. Working with Ralf Seybold's team, we overhauled our web presence with tremendous impact. Both new customer inquiries and booking volume have increased significantly."
"Ralf Seybold supported us exactly where we needed help — something no other SEO agency had managed before! We're very happy with the fast, professional service. I'd absolutely recommend this SEO agency to anyone!"
"As a co-founder of mydays and myobis, I can personally recommend him without reservation, based on a whole range of successful projects — someone who always thinks in the customer's interest is truly valuable!"
First, preserve the current state and do not report anything yet. Take screenshots showing the browser address bar and time, record the full URL of the page and, if available, the server details. Any shutdown removes evidence that may not be recoverable afterward — source code, submission destinations, and the actual server address may disappear once the site is blocked. Only after securing the evidence should you report the site to the registrar, registry, and browser vendors.
Partly. Simply bidding on an ad keyword that matches your brand name is not, in itself, legally prohibited. It becomes unlawful if the trademark is used in the ad copy itself or if users are misled about the origin of the offer. The key to enforcement is solid evidence: timestamped screenshots, data from the ad transparency database, and documentation showing a recurring pattern over several days.
Removal is usually successful when a violation of the platform’s policies can be substantiated, not merely by claiming that there was no customer interaction. Strong evidence includes the absence of any customer relationship, a pattern of reviews across multiple businesses, clusters of reviews posted within a short period, and recurring wording or text patterns. Gathering this evidence is manual work, but it can determine whether a report is rejected or approved.
Yes. ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini, and other systems answer questions about your company based on sources they select themselves. These may include cloned websites, outdated directory listings, or manipulated review content. The difference from traditional search is that there is no results list in which an incorrect statement might be overlooked; instead, there is a single answer. That is why the AI-generated answer itself is not usually corrected directly. Instead, the underlying source it came from needs to be corrected.
Most ranking drops that are interpreted as attacks are not attacks at all, but the result of an algorithm update, a technical issue, or a content problem. The distinction can be made by comparing data: performance relative to competitors, the exact timeline of the decline, and the types of pages affected. Only when this pattern clearly points to a targeted attack should the investigation move on to identifying the infrastructure behind it.
A free initial analysis with a personal conversation — no obligation, straight talk. In 30 minutes, you'll know where you stand.
✓ Free & no obligation · ✓ Response within 24h · ✓ No contractual commitment