No upfront fees. You pay only after removal. How it works
Reputation
One URL is a task. Twenty-five is a project. Reporting them one by one with no plan wastes your best evidence.
No upfront fees. You pay only after removal.
This is for you if
The same claim appears in many posts and communities.
Several accounts are involved.
Older and newer posts are mixed together.
You have a list of links and no idea where to start.
How Reddit handles this
Reddit received 16,070,307 user reports in six months and acted on 9.3%. Reasons a report is not actioned include that it is a duplicate, or that on review the content was judged non-violating. Sending the same complaint about twenty-five URLs, with no plan, produces exactly those outcomes and burns credibility.
We build a single inventory: each URL with its community, author, date, the issue and the evidence. We rank by harm and by the strength of the basis, assess each URL on its own ground (privacy, harassment, impersonation, copyright, false statement, or none), and file coordinated requests so nothing contradicts anything else. Reddit's own reporting separates the number of legal requests from the number of pieces of content they identify, because one request can cover many items.
In any large case some content is simply honest criticism. We tell you that in the assessment, and for those URLs the options are a measured public response or leaving them alone. Pursuing a removal we believe has no basis usually fails and can draw more attention to the content.
How we handle it
One master sheet: URL, community, author, date, issue, evidence.
Rank by harm and by likelihood of success. High-impact, high-ground URLs go first.
Each URL gets its own basis: privacy, rule breach, copyright, false claim or none.
Coordinated, sequenced requests so nothing contradicts anything else.
Each action on your case is recorded with its date. You can read the log at any time in your client portal, and reply to us there.
The rulebook
In a batch, each link is sorted by the rule it breaks. These are the three rules that most batches fall under.
Across a batch, this rule usually covers only some of the URLs: the abusive ones. We sort every URL by the rule it breaks, instead of arguing all of them the same way.
We flag the URLs that contain personal details first, because they tend to have the clearest basis and set the tone for the rest of the batch.
Fake reviews and sock-puppet replies are sorted under this rule, apart from genuine customer complaints, which have a different (and harder) route.
Paraphrased from the official Reddit Rules. Moderators also enforce each community's own rules, under Reddit's Moderator Code of Conduct.
By the numbers
Not every link can be handled the same way. How much content is shared privately, and how much reaches Reddit, changes the order of work.
126
legal demands from private parties to remove content
Reddit removed 41% of the content identified for breaking the Reddit Rules and declined to act on 58%. Most came from the United States (44), the United Kingdom (28) and Germany (11).
Source: Reddit Transparency Report · July to December 2024
Legal background
Courts have looked at orders that cover many posts at once. The limits they set explain why every link is reviewed separately.
Court case · California Supreme Court · 2018
5 Cal.5th 522 (2018)
A law firm won a default judgment over defamatory reviews and a court order directing Yelp to remove them. In a 4 to 3 decision the California Supreme Court held that Section 230 prevented the court from ordering Yelp to remove the reviews; the judgment against the reviewer stood.
Why it matters here: Even a court win against the author may not compel a platform to delete the content. That is why a platform's own rules and reporting process matter so much.
Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit · 2014
755 F.3d 398 (6th Cir. 2014)
A gossip website published user submissions about a teacher and added a comment of its own. The Sixth Circuit adopted the "material contribution" test and held that the site owner did not become the developer of the posts merely by selecting them, commenting on them or encouraging submissions.
Why it matters here: Even a site built on gossip stays immune for what users send in. The poster and the platform's own rules are the practical routes, not a claim against the host.
Real public cases
A public example of fake legal demands aimed at content, and why each item still needs a real basis.
Public case · 2024 · not a client of ours
Public case · 2025 · not a client of ours
The outcome
Your case lists each URL with its outcome: removed, declined, or still under review.
Links with the clearest basis are reported first, so you see progress while harder ones are prepared.
For links that cannot be removed, we say why and what the remaining options are.
Before you do anything
Reviewers assess links one by one. A mixed report weakens the strong ones.
We would rather sort all of them and tell you honestly which can be removed.
A short line on why each link matters saves days later.
While we work
Sign in with a one-time code sent to your email. Follow the case, reply to us, add links and evidence, and read your invoice there. The invoice is issued only after removal.
What we need
Case studies
Questions
No. A multi-URL case is simply one that needs coordination rather than a single report.
Cases are scoped after assessment, and you receive a quote before any work starts. As with every case, you pay only after removal.
Client feedback
Multiple Reddit URLs
“I came to them with multiple Reddit URLs instead of just one post. They reviewed everything individually and explained the available options. The process was straightforward, and I appreciated having one point of contact throughout.”
Alex P. · Sydney, Australia
Client reviews, shared with permission.
Related
Request review of a subreddit, or of a community that keeps targeting you.
Learn moreRemove a Reddit post, or delete the whole discussion under it.
Learn moreRemove a Reddit comment, reply or exchange.
Learn moreAll Reddit removal services Communities we work in Legal references