When a rate-a-judge
site crosses the line
Judges are no strangers to criticism, but one California judge discovered just how dangerous online reviews can become when his home address appeared on a “rate-a-judge” website. Despite months of complaints, the site refused to take action—until Ironwall stepped in.
With some websites, sending an email is not enough to get private content removed – they only respond to a person-to-person demand, and Ironwall is the company that always gets results.
The threat
- A California judge became the target of a review website featuring scathing comments from unhappy litigants.
- The judge’s home address was publicly posted alongside the reviews, endangering his family.
- Months of complaints to the website were ignored or met with vague promises to resolve the issue.
The outcome
- Ironwall leveraged California law to demand immediate removal of the judge’s address.
- The website complied swiftly and worked with Ironwall to streamline future removal requests.
The threat
- A California judge became the target of a review website featuring scathing comments from unhappy litigants.
- The judge’s home address was publicly posted alongside the reviews, endangering his family.
- Months of complaints to the website were ignored or met with vague promises to resolve the issue.
The outcome
- Ironwall leveraged California law to demand immediate removal of the judge’s address.
- The website complied swiftly and worked with Ironwall to streamline future removal requests.
Online reviews gone too far
These days you can rate almost anything online, from hotels and restaurants to plumbers and auto repair shops. But should that apply to judges as well? One website thought so, and invited anyone who had appeared before a judge to leave a review about the experience.
Not surprisingly, those who did not receive the decision or verdict they wanted left scathing reviews of how they were treated in court.
One California judge became a primary target of this site, but in this case, the negative comments were accompanied by the publication of his home address. That information on a public website represented an ongoing danger to his safety, and that of his family.
“We’re not responsible” isn’t good enough
Understandably troubled, the judge contacted the website repeatedly over the course of several months to ask that his address be taken down. The site either ignored him or made vague promises to address it. They claimed they weren't responsible for visitors' comments.
This is the concern when addressing the challenge of online privacy protection. There are thousands of data brokers and people finder websites, but the threat of data exposure extends far beyond sites that exist for the purpose of sharing and selling personal information. Government sites, real estate sites, social media, and sites launched with malicious intent all pose an equally serious danger to those in public-facing positions.
What good does it do to remove a judge’s address from just 40% of the sites where it might be published if even one site is enough to cause a security incident?
Comprehensive protection, decisive results
Knowing the risks, Ironwall didn’t take no for an answer. We contacted the website and informed them about a California statute that holds their company responsible for both their content and user comments. We demanded the removal of the judge’s address. Once we made our position clear, the content was taken down, and has not reappeared.
After resolving this issue, we worked with the website on ways to streamline the process of removing personal information, given the likelihood that a situation like this one might happen again.
Please Note: All case studies are described in ways that preserve our clients’ safety and anonymity.
Prevent exposure, protect your team
When personal information becomes public, the risks are real. Ironwall provides comprehensive solutions that ensure your data stays private and secure.