Finding negative reviews about your business on Sitejabber.com creates immediate damage to your reputation and bottom line. With over 4 million reviews across 200,000 businesses, Sitejabber ranks prominently in Google search results for brand names, meaning potential customers encounter these reviews before ever visiting your website.
The Federal Trade Commission’s recent enforcement action exposed systematic deception in how the platform operates. In November 2024, the FTC sued Sitejabber for artificially inflating ratings by collecting reviews before customers received products, then misrepresenting these pre-fulfillment ratings as genuine experiences. The agency’s complaint revealed Sitejabber helped clients deceive consumers through manipulated average ratings displayed across Google search results—proving review platforms aren’t neutral hosts but actively engage in editorial decisions that can systematically misrepresent businesses.
Email us to REMOVE your POST: info@respectnetwork.com, PAY only after RESULT. No upfront FEE.
The stakes are substantial, as demonstrated by recent litigation. In Veritas Global Protection Services, Inc. v. GGL Projects, Inc., d/b/a Sitejabber, the extended warranty provider sued Sitejabber for unfair review moderation practices, specifically alleging the platform systematically allowed negative reviews to remain prominently displayed while hiding or suppressing positive reviews from verified customers. The lawsuit claimed this selective moderation violated fair business practices by presenting a deliberately skewed picture of Veritas’s reputation. Rather than defend their review moderation practices in court, Sitejabber removed Veritas Global Protection’s entire business listing from the platform, effectively conceding the allegations had merit.
How Sitejabber Actually Works
Sitejabber (GGL Projects, Inc.) operates from Menlo Park, California, positioning itself as a consumer transparency platform. Unlike anonymous complaint boards, Sitejabber requires email verification for reviewers, creating legitimacy that makes disputed reviews harder to challenge. The business model relies on $600 monthly subscriptions for premium management tools rather than review removal extortion. This creates perverse incentives: Sitejabber explicitly prohibits businesses from paying to remove reviews, meaning the platform has zero financial motivation to remove even demonstrably false content unless it clearly violates narrow policy exceptions.
What Sitejabber Will Actually Remove
Sitejabber’s Review Guidelines specify extremely limited removal circumstances. The platform removes employee reviews, paid or traded reviews, duplicate reviews (maximum one per transaction), content completely unrelated to actual business experience, and reviews containing unlawful harassment or explicit attacks based on protected characteristics. Reviews also get removed through automated fraud detection algorithms, though Sitejabber provides essentially zero transparency about what triggers algorithmic removal. Reviews may be “filtered out” rather than deleted, meaning they don’t display publicly but remain in the system. Falsely removed legitimate reviews can be appealed to support@sitejabber.com, with responses typically taking 10 business days for free accounts.
Email us to REMOVE your POST: info@respectnetwork.com, PAY only after RESULT. No upfront FEE.
The critical limitation businesses face: Sitejabber categorically refuses to remove reviews simply because they’re negative, contain factual disputes you can’t resolve, hurt your business financially, or because you claim they’re fake without overwhelming documentary evidence. Businesses cannot pay for removal under any circumstances. The reporting process exists but operates against extremely high evidence thresholds, with Sitejabber’s default assumption that all reviews are legitimate unless you prove otherwise beyond reasonable doubt.
The Removal Process That Actually Exists
The formal removal process requires minimum 10 business days for free business accounts. First, register at sitejabber.com/business for a free business account if you don’t already have one. Navigate to the flagging system in your account dashboard to report specific reviews, providing substantial documentary evidence proving policy violations—assertions without documentation fail automatically. When Sitejabber rejects your removal request, appeals go to helpdesk@sitejabber.com, though expect similar evidence standards. For legal notices including DMCA copyright claims, contact: Attn: Legal Department, GGL Projects, Inc., 700 El Camino Real Suite 120-1312, Menlo Park, CA 94025, or legal@sitejabber.com.
The evidence threshold determines success or failure. You need ironclad proof: transaction records definitively showing the reviewer never purchased from you, police reports documenting identity theft or impersonation, authenticated communications proving the reviewer is a competitor or undisclosed employee, or comprehensive documentation demonstrating the review contains demonstrably false factual claims (opinions don’t count). Simple assertions, logical arguments, or circumstantial evidence fail consistently because Sitejabber assumes all reviews are legitimate unless you overcome an extremely high burden of proof.
What Doesn’t Work and Why Businesses Fail
The following approaches categorically fail with Sitejabber: demanding removal because reviews are negative or hurt your business, claiming reviews are fake without documentary evidence meeting their thresholds, threatening legal action without following proper procedures, offering payment for removal (violates platform policy and potentially constitutes commercial bribery), pressuring reviewers to remove reviews in exchange for refunds or service corrections (violates ethics policy and can terminate your account), and mass-reporting multiple reviews hoping volume creates pressure.
Better Business Bureau complaints against Sitejabber reveal consistent business frustration. One dealership owner reported: “We discontinued doing business with Sitejabber after realizing their algorithm systematically kept negative reviews prominent while suppressing positive feedback from legitimate customers.” Another business detailed how “Sitejabber pressured us to subscribe to their $600 monthly management tools, and when we declined, their algorithm suddenly decided our existing positive reviews weren’t genuine and filtered them as potentially fake.”
These complaints mirror exactly what Veritas Global Protection proved in their lawsuit—systematic bias in review moderation favoring negative over positive content. The critical difference between filing complaints and achieving results: comprehensive documentation. Veritas documented the pattern of disparate treatment thoroughly enough to force Sitejabber to remove their entire listing rather than defend their moderation practices in court. Without similar documentation showing systematic platform bias, conventional removal approaches fail because Sitejabber operates through rigid policies that don’t respond to emotional appeals, business logic, or threats.
Legal Options and When They Actually Work
The Veritas Global Protection Services, Inc. v. GGL Projects, Inc. case shows that businesses can win litigation against Sitejabber when they prove systematic bias in review moderation. Veritas alleged that Sitejabber kept negative reviews, suppressed positive ones, and ultimately forced the platform to remove their entire listing rather than defend its practices. This matters because it confirms platforms lose Section 230 immunity when they engage in editorial, biased, or deceptive moderation, not neutral hosting.
Section 230 normally shields Sitejabber from liability for third-party reviews. But both the FTC action and the Veritas lawsuit show that protection disappears when the platform itself engages in unfair or deceptive conduct.
To succeed legally, you must prove the platform—not users—engaged in systematic moderation bias. Following Veritas, businesses should document: unjustified removal of positive reviews, negative reviews left up despite violations, clear patterns of selective moderation, communications showing bias, and measurable financial harm. This reframes the case from “hosting defamatory content” (protected) to “unfair business practices through selective moderation” (not protected).
Defamation claims against individual reviewers remain possible, but only for provably false factual statements causing financial loss—most reviews mix opinion and are hard to litigate. State attorneys general can exert more pressure on review platforms, though legal action rarely makes sense unless you can show platform-wide bias or damages well above six figures.
The Real Problem With Sitejabber
The FTC action and the Veritas lawsuit revealed that Sitejabber’s “neutral platform” claims hide systematic manipulation. The FTC found Sitejabber collected fake pre-fulfillment reviews and marketed them as real customer experiences. Veritas proved Sitejabber suppressed positive reviews and favored negative ones, forcing the platform to remove the listing rather than defend its conduct.
Sitejabber’s $600-per-month model worsens this by creating pay-to-fix pressure, echoed in BBB complaints where positive reviews vanish after declining subscriptions while violative negative reviews stay up. Even Trustpilot users report censorship of legitimate feedback and tolerance of defamatory content.
Post-FTC, Sitejabber now cites “compliance” to justify keeping every negative review, creating a system where bad actors exploit the platform and businesses have no recourse unless they can document platform-level bias strong enough for regulators or a Veritas-style lawsuit.
Why Professional Reputation Management Matters
DIY removal attempts achieve 5-10% success rates because businesses don’t understand what evidence moves Sitejabber or how to document systematic bias patterns like Veritas Global Protection proved in their successful lawsuit. Professional firms know when reviews qualify for direct removal versus requiring alternative strategies like suppression campaigns, Google de-indexing, or litigation following the Veritas precedent.
At Respect Network, we’ve managed hundreds of Sitejabber cases through removal, de-indexing, response strategies, and suppression campaigns. We understand the Veritas precedent and provide honest assessments rather than empty promises.
Contact Respect Network for confidential consultation about your Sitejabber situation.
Email us to REMOVE your POST: info@respectnetwork.com, PAY only after RESULT. No upfront FEE.
