If we do not succeed, you do not pay
Direct answers for businesses, and for anyone who wants to understand how the process actually works.
Short answers first. If your case is unusual, send the URLs and we will tell you plainly whether a filing is worth making.
We submit a moderation request that cites Glassdoor's guidelines and, where it applies, the law. Glassdoor then decides. First answers often take 10–15 days. We allow up to 60 days, including appeals, before treating a case as unsuccessful.
No. Glassdoor is an open forum. A Free Employer Account lets you reply. Removal of posts that break the rules is the remaining option, and that is the work we do.
That is the publisher's choice. Some sites contact the author when the allegations are serious but not a clear breach. Authors are not usually told that the business hired a specialist.
We file directly through Google's review tools. The submission explains which policy has been broken. First responses often arrive within a week. Refusals are common; they are not always final. We continue with further information or a fresh application where the case still stands.
Once a publisher accepts the case, the post is taken down and rarely returns. If it reappears, the original engagement still covers a further attempt.
Yes. We use the publisher's own channels. We do not offer incentives and we do not impersonate anyone. The platform remains the decision-maker.
Fees depend on the site and the content. After we see the URLs we can usually quote the same day. A refundable deposit may be required. You pay the balance only if the content comes down. Volume discounts are available when several posts are in scope.
Often yes. Some publishers ignore later attempts after a weak first filing, which is why the first submission should be complete. Because unsuccessful work is not billed, there is little risk in letting us assess it.
Usually not. A public reply can make the post look settled or more authentic. We may ask you to remove a response for the duration and restore it later if needed.
No. Fair, on-policy reviews from real customers are not our target. Platforms keep those, and they should. We challenge posts that break the rules they already published.
The publisher decides, not the client and not Reputero. Sites exist to host useful, honest feedback. They remove material that fails their own tests: fake accounts, conflicts of interest, abuse, off-topic attacks. That is a narrower set than "anything negative".
Not through us. If the posts are legitimate and on-policy, we will say the case is weak. Paying only for success is also a filter: we have no incentive to take on files that cannot meet the publisher's standard.
Readers are not reliable at spotting fakes, and the star rating is damaged even when a post "looks" false. A 4.9 pulled to 4.2 is enough for many people to stop reading at all.
Accurate reporting by recognised newsrooms, official government records, and material that is true, lawful, and fairly posted. We still look, because source sites sometimes agree to edits. We will not pretend a news article is a review.
Send us the content that is causing damage. We will tell you, at no cost, whether it can be removed and what the process looks like.