RMG Digital Solutions

Who we serve

The same problem behaves differently depending on whose name is on it.

A false statement about a private individual, a listed company, and a public figure are three different matters with different mechanisms, different timelines, and different definitions of a good outcome.

These distinctions are not marketing segments. They change the work substantively. A private individual has legal protections a public figure does not. A listed company has disclosure obligations a family office does not. An owner-operated business lives or dies on a local review profile that is irrelevant to an executive at a multinational.

The common thread

Every client here has a name that carries consequences.

Whether that name belongs to a person, a family, or an institution, the underlying condition is the same: what the searchable record says is affecting decisions that other people make, and the record is not accurate.

Who we serve

Executives & Founders

Your personal record and your institution's are read as one document.

Anyone conducting diligence searches the company and then searches you, and the weaker of the two results sets the impression they carry into the room. A private individual with a bad search result has a personal problem. A named executive with the same result has a problem that attaches to a board, a valuation, a hiring pipeline, and a set of counterparties who will never tell you why they hesitated.

The most common version we see is not scandal. It is a stale record: an earlier venture described only at its worst moment, a dispute resolved on terms you cannot discuss, a namesake with a criminal record and a similar professional profile. The second most common is thinness: a founder who has spent fifteen years building something and never published anything, whose record consists of a funding announcement, a conference bio, and whatever a single unhappy party wrote once. In that vacuum, the unhappy party is the record.

Where the limits are

Accurate, newsworthy coverage of your conduct does not come down, for this firm or for anyone. Where a matter is genuinely adverse and current, the work that remains is proportion: the visible record of what you did next, which is frequently more persuasive to a board than an absence would have been.

Why this behaves differently

  • Diligence reads you as a set

    You, the company, and the other named executives. Your record does not get assessed in isolation.

  • The stakes are transactional

    A search result that costs a private individual social discomfort can cost an executive a valuation point or a board seat.

  • Silence is read as substance

    A thin record on someone consequential invites inference, and inference is usually less generous than the facts.

What usually applies

Asked in these matters

Can this be arranged so the company does not see my personal matters?

Yes, and it is common. Where an individual engages privately, nothing is reported to the company. Where a company sponsors a program, the boundaries between individual and institutional reporting are agreed in writing at the start.

Who we serve

Corporate

An entity has a reputation, and so does everyone who signs on its behalf.

Corporate matters differ from personal ones in three structural ways. There are more stakeholders, each reading the record for different reasons: customers, investors, regulators, employees, acquirers. There are disclosure obligations that constrain what can be said and when. And there is an in-house legal function whose position determines the available strategy, which means coordination is not optional.

The entity-level work is largely architectural. A company frequently operates under a legal name, a trading name, and a brand, and if those are never stated together in a machine-readable form, search and AI systems maintain three partial entities instead of one. The second half is people: every named executive is individually searchable, diligence follows those names, and the weakest individual record becomes the accessible line of inquiry.

Where the limits are

We are not a law firm and we do not advise on disclosure obligations. Where a matter touches securities, regulatory, or employment law, your counsel leads and we work within the position they set. And we will not assist in concealing conduct causing ongoing harm, which in a corporate context most often arrives as a request to reduce the visibility of reporting on a live safety, product, or employment issue. It is declined.

Why this behaves differently

  • Multiple audiences, one record

    Investors, customers, regulators, and candidates read the same material for different purposes and reach different conclusions.

  • Disclosure constrains the response

    What can be said, and when, may be determined by obligations rather than by strategy.

  • The record outlives the cycle

    Coverage stops; search results and model answers do not. That is the phase most crisis engagements leave.

What usually applies

Asked in these matters

Do you handle employee review sites?

We will assess them and address material that violates a platform's published policy or contains demonstrable factual error. We will not fabricate favorable reviews or attempt to manipulate a rating, which is the most frequent request in this area and one we decline without exception.

Who we serve

Individuals & Families

No communications department, no legal team on retainer, and one search result standing in for an entire life.

Private individuals occupy a genuinely different position from every other client this firm serves, and mostly a better one legally. Defamation standards are more favorable. Platform policies offer protections that do not extend to public figures. Statutory erasure rights, where they apply, apply here first. The available mechanisms are frequently stronger than people assume.

What is worse is everything else. There is no communications team, no in-house counsel, and no one to call at eleven at night. There is often deep embarrassment, which delays people from seeking help for months while the material settles into the index. And the harm is immediate and personal rather than commercial: a job application, a rental agreement, a custody proceeding, a child who searched a parent's name. Because the mechanisms here are comparatively strong, this is also the category where an honest assessment most often produces good news.

Where the limits are

Accurate reporting of a matter of genuine public record does not come down. Court records are public in most jurisdictions and newspapers do not remove accurate coverage, so where that is your situation the assessment says so in the first conversation and we work on proportion and context instead. A matter that is still developing needs your attorney before it needs us.

Why this behaves differently

  • Stronger legal footing

    Private-individual standards in defamation, and platform policies that do not extend to public figures.

  • The harm is immediate

    Employment, housing, credit, custody, schooling. Not a valuation, a life.

  • Aggregators monetize the record

    Sites that republish charges and then charge for removal. There are correct ways to handle these and expensive wrong ones.

What usually applies

Asked in these matters

A site is charging to remove my mugshot. Should I pay?

Usually not, and not before an assessment. Payment often results in the record appearing on a related site, and in many jurisdictions the practice is now restricted. There are frequently better routes, including the publisher's own policies and applicable statutes.

Who we serve

Family Offices

The objective here is frequently absence rather than presence.

Family offices invert the usual objective. Most clients want to be found accurately. A principal frequently wants not to be found at all, and where that is no longer possible, wants the findable record to be accurate, minimal, and stable. Publishing more material, which is the standard proactive intervention, is often exactly wrong: it creates surface area. The correct approach is usually reduction and control.

The scope is also different. The record is not one person's: it includes a principal, a spouse, adult children, sometimes minors, several operating entities, a foundation, and the historical record of a business that may have been sold decades ago. Material about any of them can affect all of them. And the confidentiality standard is higher: a family office typically has existing legal, tax, and security advisers, and this work has to fit alongside them without duplicating or contradicting.

Where the limits are

Complete invisibility is not achievable for anyone with significant assets, corporate filings, or property holdings. Public records are public, and anyone promising total removal from the internet is describing something that does not exist. We also do not provide physical security, surveillance, or investigative services.

Why this behaves differently

  • The objective may be absence

    Reduction and control rather than visibility. Publishing more can be precisely the wrong intervention.

  • Multi-generational scope

    Principal, spouse, adult children, minors, entities, and a foundation. Material about one affects the others.

  • Discretion standards are stricter

    Discretion is a condition of engagement here rather than a preference, and it shapes how the work is conducted and reported.

What usually applies

Asked in these matters

Can you reduce what data brokers hold?

Substantially, though not permanently, because brokers repopulate from public sources, so this is maintenance rather than a one-time removal. We will be clear about which entries can be taken down and which will return.

Who we serve

Public Figures

The achievable objective is proportion and context, not disappearance.

Public figures have the hardest version of this problem and the clearest one. Hardest because the legal protections are weakest: the actual malice standard is a substantial barrier, platform policies that protect private individuals frequently exclude you, and legitimate news coverage of your work is not going anywhere. Clearest because that constraint eliminates the options that waste other clients' money.

The work is therefore proportion. A public record is going to contain the difficult episodes; the question is whether it contains everything else at comparable weight. A great deal of what damages public figures is technically accurate and materially misleading: a quotation stripped of its question, a settlement described without its terms, a decade-old position presented as current. None of that is removable and all of it is addressable by making the fuller version equally findable. The AI dimension is acute here: models compress long careers toward the most distinctive episode rather than the most representative one.

Where the limits are

Legitimate journalism about your public role is not removable, and requests to reduce the visibility of accurate reporting on a public figure's public conduct are declined here. A record cannot be restored to what it was before an episode: proportion is achievable and erasure is not, so proportion is what the engagement is scoped to deliver.

Why this behaves differently

  • Weaker legal protection

    Actual malice standards and reduced platform protections. The available levers are editorial and structural rather than legal.

  • Accurate but misleading is the norm

    Stripped quotations, missing outcomes, outdated positions presented as current.

  • Litigation is a visibility decision

    Filing creates a durable public record. That trade-off has to be quantified before it is made.

What usually applies

Asked in these matters

Can you fix my Wikipedia entry?

What we can do is establish that the reliable sources it draws on are accurate, which is the route its own editors are meant to follow. We do not edit entries directly: Wikipedia has conflict-of-interest rules, and undisclosed editing is both against policy and independently damaging when it is discovered.

Who we serve

Owner-Operated Businesses

Your name and the business's name are frequently the same asset.

For an owner-operated business the reputational and the commercial are the same thing, with almost no lag. A prospective customer searches, reads three results and a rating, and decides. There is no brand equity absorbing the impact and no communications function managing it, and the effect appears in the following week's bookings.

The most damaging single item we see here is an autocomplete suggestion: a business name completed with a word like scam, lawsuit, or complaints. It intercepts a customer at the moment of highest intent, before they have read anything, and most owners do not know it is happening because their own search history hides it. Local AI answers are the second front: asked to recommend a provider in a specific area, a model produces a short list with reasoning, and whether you appear on it depends on structured local data and consistency across sources.

Where the limits are

We will not write, buy, incentivize, or otherwise arrange reviews. Not positive ones for you and not negative ones for a competitor. Fake reviews are prohibited by federal rule, they violate every major platform's terms, and detection now results in a public warning label on your listing, which is considerably worse than the problem it was meant to solve. We also cannot remove genuine negative reviews from real customers.

Why this behaves differently

  • Revenue responds immediately

    Reputation and cash flow are the same signal here, on a timescale of days rather than quarters.

  • Autocomplete is the highest-cost surface

    A suggestion intercepts intent before a single result is read, and owners rarely see it themselves.

  • Local AI answers now gate discovery

    Models produce short recommendation lists, and appearing on them depends on structured local data.

What usually applies

Asked in these matters

A competitor is posting fake complaints. What can be done?

We document the pattern first with a dated record, then file platform reports on the policy grounds that apply, and where the conduct is serious we assemble material your attorney can act on. Retaliation in kind is not part of it, because it is unlawful and it forfeits the platform grounds you are relying on.

Not sure which one you are?

Most people are between two of them. The four questions on Where to Begin will get you closer than choosing from a list, and the first conversation will establish which mechanisms actually apply.

Where to begin

Tell us where you are.

One conversation, in confidence, with an honest reading of what can be changed, including when the answer is that nothing needs to be.

Request a Consultation Or write to us directly

If your matter is in litigation, or likely to be, have your attorney contact us instead. Communications routed through counsel are treated differently, and that protection cannot be added afterwards. Why this matters