A false complaint on ComplaintsBoard ranks #2 when prospective clients Google your company name. The anonymous post accuses your business of fraud. You contact ComplaintsBoard.com requesting removal with evidence the accusations are fabricated. They respond that complaints require court orders for removal.
You discover Complaints Board operates from Russia using fake Western identities, was originally registered under “Elizabeth Arden” like the cosmetics company, and has been successfully sued for stealing content but simply ignored court rulings. This is the reality a startup founder faced in early 2024 when a baseless fraud accusation caused lost investor deals until suppression measures buried the complaint off page one.
Email us to REMOVE your POST: info@respectnetwork.com, PAY only after RESULT. No upfront FEE.
ComplaintsBoard.com operates under Dzianis Beltyukov and Mediolex Ltd., claiming headquarters in Riga, Latvia. Research reveals the site actually runs from Moscow, Russia using fake registration details to avoid accountability. Founded in 2004, the platform has spent 20+ years building Google authority while refusing removal requests and operating behind Section 230 immunity. With a 2.2-star Trustpilot rating from users complaining about the platform’s practices, ComplaintsBoard exemplifies how complaint sites exploit legal loopholes to profit from reputation damage.
The Fake Identity Shell Game
ComplaintsBoard.com’s WHOIS registration history reveals deliberate deception. The domain was originally registered in 2006 under “Elizabeth Arden”—yes, like the cosmetics company, which has denied any connection. In 2009, registration changed to “Mark Shultz” with a California P.O. Box. In 2010, it moved to Latvia but kept the Shultz name, then changed to “Business Networks Ltd.” Current registration lists Mediolex Ltd. and Beltyukov in Riga at Smerla 3-216a.
Research indicates Beltyukov is Russian, not Latvian, and the site operates from Moscow despite claiming European headquarters. Multiple companies have won default judgments against ComplaintsBoard but cannot enforce removal because Russian operators operate beyond U.S. legal reach.
The Johnson v. ComplaintsBoard Case
Susan and Robert Johnson, owners of Cozy Kittens Cattery, sued ComplaintsBoard in Missouri state court in June 2008 for hosting defamatory comments about their cat breeding business. They named ComplaintsBoard, “Elizabeth Arden” as the alleged publisher, “Michelle Reitenger,” hosting provider InMotion, and two users who posted comments. The case was removed to federal court in October 2008. The state court had entered default judgment against one defendant who never appeared. After removal, defendants moved to dismiss based on Section 230 immunity and lack of personal jurisdiction.
Email us to REMOVE your POST: info@respectnetwork.com, PAY only after RESULT. No upfront FEE.
On June 8, 2009, the court granted motions to dismiss filed by defendants. On July 10, 2009, the court dismissed without prejudice the claims against ComplaintsBoard and the fake “Elizabeth Arden” identity. On August 4, 2010, the Eighth Circuit affirmed dismissal. The disputed comments no longer appear on ComplaintsBoard, though whether this resulted from settlement, default, or other reasons remains unclear. The case established that ComplaintsBoard enjoys Section 230 protection identical to other platforms—victims can only sue individual posters, not the platform itself.
The Copyright Theft Business Model
Ripoff Report sued ComplaintsBoard (Xcentric Ventures v. Mediolex) for systematically stealing complaints and republishing as original content. Court documents proved ComplaintsBoard “scrapes” reviews from toxic user-generated platforms and posts them as their own. This content theft builds Google authority through high-volume indexed pages while creating removal demand from businesses discovering complaints they never knew existed.
Multiple reputation management firms documented ComplaintsBoard’s theft from PissedConsumer, Ripoff Report, and other sites. When businesses contact ComplaintsBoard requesting removal of stolen content, the platform responds that only court orders qualify—ignoring that the content represents copyright infringement ComplaintsBoard itself committed.
What ComplaintsBoard Won’t Remove
ComplaintsBoard’s FAQ states explicitly: “We do not remove complaints unless we receive an officially signed court order.” This applies to all removal requests regardless of merit. The platform won’t remove complaints even when original posters request deletion. Trustpilot reviews document this: “This site is a scam. You cannot, under any circumstances delete a review you have made and customer support is useless.”
One user documented on Avvo how ComplaintsBoard refused to let account holders edit their own content: “I contacted them numerous times and they refused to allow the removal of my complaint.” Even when users mark complaints as “resolved,” content remains visible permanently—resolved status only affects rating calculations.
The platform explicitly states reputation management companies cannot remove complaints: “Reputation management companies claim to be able to remove your complaint from any website for a fee, however, these claims are false.”
Section 230 Immunity and Legal Reality
ComplaintsBoard operates under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, providing near-absolute immunity. The platform’s legal page states: “Under federal law (the Communications Decency Act) ComplaintsBoard.com is not legally responsible for the complaints that are posted, even if those complaints contain remarks that are defamatory.”
Email us to REMOVE your POST: info@respectnetwork.com, PAY only after RESULT. No upfront FEE.
The Johnson case confirmed ComplaintsBoard benefits from identical Section 230 protection shielding other platforms. Victims can only sue individual posters. Even court orders determining content is defamatory don’t guarantee removal—ComplaintsBoard’s Russian operation means U.S. court orders carry no enforcement power.
The 2018 Google Penalty
Google penalized ComplaintsBoard in 2018 along with other reputation-damaging websites for shady business practices, causing rankings to drop. However, negative reviews can still appear in top search results for business name searches—especially for businesses with minimal online presence. The penalty targeted sites monetizing through reputation damage, platforms with no legitimate vetting, and websites operating removal extortion schemes. ComplaintsBoard’s rankings dropped for generic searches but maintained strong positions for specific business names where few competing results existed.
Alternative Strategies When Removal Fails
When ComplaintsBoard refuses removal—the standard outcome—four alternatives exist. Court orders technically qualify per ComplaintsBoard’s policy, but enforcement remains impossible against Russian operators. Google de-indexing removes ComplaintsBoard URLs from search results through court orders submitted to Google, addressing the actual problem—visibility—without requiring ComplaintsBoard cooperation.
Suppression campaigns push ComplaintsBoard posts off page one through strategic SEO. Create high-authority web properties ranking above ComplaintsBoard: optimize websites, build LinkedIn profiles, publish press releases, generate positive reviews on Google and Trustpilot, and create video content. Professional suppression typically needs 3-6 months to move ComplaintsBoard from page 1 to page 2-5 of results.
Direct negotiation with original posters works when complaints originated on ComplaintsBoard rather than being stolen. Identify posters through username, attempt contact offering resolution. If negotiation fails, sue the individual for defamation and use the judgment for Google de-indexing.
How Respect Network Can Help
DIY removal attempts through ComplaintsBoard’s reporting systems fail 98% of the time for reputation-damaging content. The 2% success rate involves copyright claims for stolen content where DMCA takedowns to hosting providers bypass ComplaintsBoard entirely.
Respect Network has successfully managed hundreds of ComplaintsBoard reputation crises using what actually works against Russian-operated platforms. Our approach combines Google de-indexing through proper legal channels, suppression campaigns pushing articles to page 2-5 where they cause minimal damage, and direct negotiation with original posters when identifiable.
Contact Respect Network for confidential consultation about your ComplaintsBoard situation. We won’t waste your money pursuing removal requests that fail against Russian operators operating behind fake Western identities.
Email us to REMOVE your POST: info@respectnetwork.com, PAY only after RESULT. No upfront FEE.
