For proprietary trading firms

When the reviews become the weapon, your funded program is the target.

We challenge and remove fake reviews, defamatory “scam” hit-pieces and clone sites aimed at proprietary trading firms — on lawful grounds, counsel-led, confidential by design.

Request a 48-hour confidential audit See what these matters look like

Signed by Ihor Makushinsky · NDA-first · No call required to start

§ CASE FILE · PROP TRADING FIRM Your prop firm Lawful grounds · counsel-led · NDA-first THREAT OUTCOME · BASIS Fake 1-star reviews coordinated wave · Trustpilot REMOVED Defamation law “Scam” hit-piece throwaway blogs · EU subjects DELISTED GDPR Art. 17 Clone firm site paid ads on your brand REMOVED DMCA §512 Fake Telegram account impersonating your firm REMOVED Trademark FUNDED PROGRAM Top brand result · trader signups PROTECTED
What we act onGenuine criticism · not actionable
Fake & defamatory reviewsTrustpilot, forums · lawful-grounds challenge
“Scam prop firm” hit-piecesDefamation where the facts support it
Clone & impersonation sitesDMCA §512 · trademark · registrar abuse
Fake social / Telegram accountsPlatform legal channels · trademark
Search visibilityDeindexing · GDPR Art. 17 (EU subjects)
§ 02 · Why this matters

A scam accusation becomes your top brand result before you can answer it.

For a proprietary trading firm, the threat to growth is rarely a regulator — it is the review page. A wave of one-star reviews and “scam” posts from failed-challenge traders, affiliates or a competitor can turn a search for your firm into a wall of warnings, and prospective funded traders quietly never sign up.

Generic ORM agencies treat this as marketing — paid removal, soft requests, brand-management theatre. Big-law treats it as litigation — billed by the hour, scaled for court, not for volume. Both are wrong tools.

What works is fast, lawful, documented action under named statute — defamation law where reviews are false, DMCA §512 and trademark against clone sites, GDPR Article 17 for EU data subjects. Filed by counsel. Reviewed before submission. That is the whole of our practice.

We act for legitimate firms targeted by fakes, clones and defamation — and we are explicit about the line: we do not remove genuine customer criticism, accurate reporting, or lawful regulatory warnings, and we say so at intake.

§ 03 · Our approach

Three constraints, held together.

Speed

Six-day median to removal.

From authorised takedown notice to confirmed delisting. Active matters reviewed daily. Volume operations scale weekly.

Legality

Every removal under named statute.

Berne, EU 2019/790, DMCA Title 17 §512, GDPR Article 17. We do not pay for removal. We do not threaten. We file.

Discretion

Counsel-signed engagements.

Communications encrypted. NDA-first standard. No marketing material includes your name unless you explicitly authorise it.

§ 04 · Operational partner

Lawyerd is a partner in Cloudflare’s Brand Protection programme with API-level access for takedown operations on Cloudflare-protected domains. This is not a public-tier integration — it is a controlled-access channel for verified enforcement practitioners.

§ 05 · By the numbers
700Removals in 20 days · single enforcement matter
~85%Success rate on qualified filings
30+Jurisdictions under active practice
§ 06 · What these matters look like Typical pattern

A review attack is rarely one review — it is a pattern.

The recurring shape: a burst of one-star reviews and “scam” posts about your firm seeded across Trustpilot, forums and throwaway blogs — often after a competitor dispute or a wave of failed challenges — while clone sites run paid ads on your brand to skim signups. We triage every URL into what is genuinely actionable (fake, defamatory, infringing or impersonating) versus lawful criticism that stays, then challenge the first set under named statute and escalate clones to host and registrar. The practice’s track record on qualified filings is in §05 above; we do not publish invented per-firm figures.

Method, not a guarantee · outcomes depend on facts and jurisdiction

  1. 01Coordinated 1-star wave
  2. 02“Scam” blog seeding
  3. 03Clone sites on your name
Ihor Makushinsky, senior counsel at Lawyerd
§ 07 · Counsel of record

Every engagement reviewed and signed by counsel.

Ihor Makushinsky
Senior counsel · in IP and compliance practice since 2014

Eight years as in-house IP specialist at Plarium (the studio behind RAID: Shadow Legends), then founded Lawyerd in 2021 to scale enforcement work. Mentor at Techstars; Entrepreneur in Residence at Temple University.

→ Full counsel profile
§ 08 · Engagement

Three shapes the practice takes.

Engagement scoped after audit. Pricing discussed under NDA.

Starter

Reactive standing capacity.

Routine media monitoring and reactive removal work. Monthly retainer. Suitable for firms with steady operations and occasional media exposure.

By appointment
Active

Continuous engagement.

For firms with ongoing media exposure across multiple jurisdictions. Direct counsel access. Bi-weekly reporting.

By appointment
Crisis

Surge capacity.

For an active media incident or regulator inquiry. Daily reporting. Time-bounded engagement.

By appointment
§ Guides

Before you engage — read these

§ 09 · Begin

Request a 48-hour confidential audit.

We will surface 3–5 live attacks against your brand, signed by counsel, without obligation.

  • 01NDA-first — attach yours and we sign before we begin
  • 02No call required to start
NDA upload · optional

Reviewed personally by Ihor Makushinsky · Response within one business day