How Google’s DMCA System Is Being Used to Remove Competitors from Search Results
Google’s DMCA takedown process allows anyone to file a copyright complaint against any page in its search index. Once filed, Google removes the page with no verification of the
claimant’s identity and no check on whether the complaint is legitimate. The page disappears from search results, and the site owner is left to file a counter-notice and wait 10 to 14 business days for reinstatement.
In competitive industries like iGaming, this process is now being used as a tool to remove rival websites from search. The pattern has accelerated since early 2026, with multiple affiliates reporting coordinated attacks against their highest-traffic pages.
We are not the only site affected. iGamingToday reported in April 2026 on how DMCA abuse is being used to manipulate search results across the iGaming sector. Techdirt covered a case where a fake DMCA notice was used to remove a Press Gazette article from Google during peak readership. The topic has been widely discussed on LinkedIn and within SEO communities throughout April and May 2026.
The sections below cover how Google’s DMCA process works, what happened to our site, the re-attack cycle that makes counter-notices ineffective, and what Google’s response revealed about how the system handles reported abuse.
How Google’s DMCA Takedown Process Works
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) requires platforms like Google to remove content when they receive a copyright complaint. This is known as the “notice and takedown” system. Google must comply to maintain its legal protection under Section 512 of the DMCA, known as safe harbor.
The process works like this:
- 1Someone files a copyright complaint with Google, claiming a page infringes their copyrighted work.
- 2Google removes the page from search results. This typically happens within 24 hours.
- 3The site owner receives a notification (sometimes) and can file a counter-notice disputing the claim.
- 4Google forwards the counter-notice to the original complainant, who has 10 to 14 business days to file a lawsuit.
- 5If no lawsuit is filed, Google reinstates the page.
On paper, this system balances the rights of copyright holders with the rights of content publishers. In practice, there is a critical asymmetry built into the process.
What Google Does Not Verify
When a DMCA complaint is filed, Google does not verify the claimant’s identity, their relationship to the allegedly infringed work, or whether the reported page contains any copyrighted material at all. No comparison to an original source is made.
According to Google’s own Transparency Report, the company processes millions of DMCA requests every week. At that scale, automated processing is the only way to handle the volume. But automated processing also means that a completely fabricated complaint receives the same treatment as a legitimate one.
The DMCA does include a penalty for false claims. Under Section 512(f), anyone who knowingly files a fraudulent copyright notice can be held liable for damages. In practice, this provision is rarely enforced because the filers use fake identities, making them difficult to trace.
What Happens When the Counter-Notice Fails
The 10 to 14 day reinstatement window assumes Google actually processes the counter-notice. In our experience, multiple counter-notices received no acknowledgment, no status update, and no reinstatement.
When a page is removed and the counter-notice process fails, the removed URL is effectively dead. A 301 redirect to a new page is not viable because the DMCA flag stays attached to the URL and can transfer to the redirect target. The only remaining option is to create an entirely new page on a fresh URL, losing all accumulated search authority, backlinks, and ranking history in the process.
For pages that took years to build and rank, this means starting from zero. And even the new page is vulnerable to the same attack the moment it begins ranking again.
A Growing Pattern Across iGaming in 2026
What happened to VIP-Grinders is not an isolated case. Since early April 2026, reports of fraudulent DMCA takedowns targeting iGaming affiliates have appeared across industry media, LinkedIn, and SEO communities. The pattern is consistent: high-traffic commercial pages removed through fake copyright complaints filed under fabricated identities.
What Has Been Reported So Far
On April 8, 2026, iGamingToday published an investigation documenting how DMCA abuse is being used to manipulate Google search results in the iGaming sector. The article described operators losing most of their traffic from key search terms overnight, with some being attacked multiple times within weeks.
One day later, Techdirt reported that a Press Gazette investigation into SEO practices in the iGaming industry was itself removed from Google via a fake DMCA complaint. The article was taken down during peak public interest, which is precisely how the tactic is designed to work. It was later reinstated after a counter-notice, but not before the story lost its critical visibility window.
The issue has also been widely discussed within the iGaming affiliate community itself. A poll on GPWA (Gambling Portal Webmasters Association), started by the organization’s Executive Director in March 2026, received 75 responses across 4 pages. Of those who voted, 40% reported having content removed by Google through alleged copyright infringement and filing counter-notices.
Why iGaming Is Particularly Vulnerable
The iGaming affiliate market has several characteristics that make it a prime target for DMCA abuse:
- High commercial value per ranking: Top positions for competitive iGaming keywords can generate thousands of dollars in monthly affiliate revenue. Removing a competitor from those positions has immediate financial value.
- Low cost of attack: Filing a fake DMCA complaint costs nothing. No identity verification is required. The risk of being caught is minimal because Google does not investigate the claimant.
- Slow recovery: Even when a counter-notice succeeds, the page may not return to its previous ranking position. Competitors who filled the gap during the downtime may retain the position permanently.
- Difficult to trace: Attackers use fake names, impersonate real companies, and rotate identities between filings. The DMCA process does not require proof of identity, making attribution nearly impossible without a court order.
The combination of high reward, low cost, and minimal risk makes DMCA abuse an attractive tactic in any competitive vertical. iGaming is simply where the financial incentive is highest.
What Happened to VIP-Grinders
VIP-Grinders is an independent iGaming affiliate that has been publishing original editorial content since 2013. Our site covers poker rakeback deals, casino reviews, operator guides, and strategy content across multiple languages. Every page targeted in this attack was original content written by our editorial team.
Starting in mid-March 2026, our pages began disappearing from Google Search results. The first removals went unnoticed for days, and in some cases weeks, because we were never notified.
The Notification Problem
Google does notify site owners of some DMCA removals through Google Search Console or email. But in our experience, we only received notifications for roughly 30% of the DMCA complaints filed against our site. The remaining 70% were discovered only after we noticed pages had stopped generating any traffic and investigated manually.
Some of these pages had been removed for weeks before we became aware. By that point, the ranking positions were already lost and competitors had moved into the gaps.
The Scale of the Attack
Over a six-week period from mid-March to early May 2026, we documented the following:
- 22 pages removed from Google Search through fraudulent DMCA complaints
- 3 languages affected (English, Polish, Czech)
- 9 different fake identities used to file the complaints
- 250,000+ lost search impressions across all affected pages
- Every single complaint was fraudulent with no legitimate copyright claim attached to any filing
The complaints targeted our highest-traffic commercial pages across all three language versions of the site. Lower-traffic pages like strategy guides or news articles were left untouched, which suggests the attacker specifically selected pages based on their commercial value.
Who Filed the Complaints
The attackers used 9 different identities across the filings. Several of these impersonated real B2B iGaming software companies, including names like EveryMatrix, WA Technology, and Aristocrat Interactive.
These are companies that produce backend infrastructure: game engines, sportsbook platforms, and payment processing tools. They do not produce editorial content. The mismatch between what these companies actually do and what they were claiming to own would be immediately obvious to anyone with basic knowledge of the iGaming industry.
None of the complaints identified a specific copyrighted work, linked to an original source, or provided any evidence of ownership. Every filing used identical boilerplate language, further confirming they originated from the same source operating under rotating identities.
The Re-Attack Cycle
The most revealing aspect of this attack was not the initial removals. It was what happened after we successfully filed counter-notices and had pages reinstated.
Of the 22 pages removed, 9 were reinstated by Google through the counter-notice process. In every single case, the attacker filed a new DMCA complaint against the same page within 48 hours of reinstatement. The page was removed again, and the cycle restarted.
The Timeline
The pattern was identical across all 9 re-attacked pages:
- 1Page removed from Google Search via fraudulent DMCA complaint
- 2We file a counter-notice through Google’s official process
- 3After 10 to 21 days, Google reinstates the page
- 4Within 24 to 48 hours of reinstatement, the attacker files a new DMCA complaint against the same page
- 5Google removes the page again. The cycle repeats.
This happened to 9 out of 9 reinstated pages. Not a single page that was successfully recovered through the counter-notice process remained live for more than a few days before being attacked again.
An Example From Our Data
One of our pages followed this exact timeline:
The chart above shows the full pattern from Google Search Console. The table below breaks down the exact dates for this page:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| March 14 | Page removed from Google via fraudulent DMCA complaint |
| March 22 | Counter-notice filed (8 days after removal) |
| April 7 | Google reinstates the page (16 days after counter-notice) |
| April 14 | New DMCA complaint filed. Page removed again (7 days after reinstatement) |
Other pages in the same attack showed even shorter turnarounds. Multiple pages were re-attacked within 2 days of reinstatement.
Why This Breaks the System
The DMCA counter-notice process was designed for legitimate copyright disputes where both parties act in good faith. It was not designed to handle an attacker who:
- Files under fake identities that change with every complaint
- Monitors reinstatements and immediately re-files
- Has no legitimate copyright claim and faces no consequences for filing false ones
- Exploits the asymmetry in timing: removal takes 24 hours, recovery takes 10 to 14 business days
The result is a system where a single bad actor can keep a legitimate page permanently removed from Google Search at effectively zero cost, simply by re-filing every time the page comes back. No legitimate copyright holder behaves this way. If a genuine rights holder has their claim rejected, they either file a lawsuit or accept the outcome, not immediately re-file under a different name.
Filing Under False Identity
The attackers did not just use fake names. In at least one documented filing, they claimed ownership of government-operated websites under penalty of perjury.
The Ontario Lottery Filing
Lumen Database entry 80546603 records a DMCA complaint in which the filer claimed to be the copyright owner of 18 unrelated domains in a single notice. Among the domains listed:
- olg.ca – the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation, a Canadian government entity
- tvp.pl – the Polish State Public Broadcaster, a government-funded media organization
- lottery.mt – the Malta National Lottery
- e-teatr.pl – the Polish national theatre database
- ceneo.pl – a Polish price comparison portal
The filer claimed copyright ownership over all 18 domains simultaneously. This is not a grey area or a borderline case. No individual or company can legitimately own the intellectual property of multiple government agencies across different countries.
Under the DMCA, every copyright complaint includes a statement made under penalty of perjury that the filer is authorized to act on behalf of the copyright owner. In this case, that statement was demonstrably false.
Why This Matters
The Ontario Lottery filing demonstrates two things about how Google’s DMCA system currently operates:
- 1Google processed the complaint despite the filer claiming to own government websites. No verification step caught what would be an obvious red flag to any human reviewer.
- 2The same filer continued to submit complaints using similar methods. Filing a provably false claim did not result in any visible restriction on the filer’s ability to submit future complaints.
The Lumen Database is a public, searchable archive maintained by the Berkman Klein Center at Harvard Law School. The filing referenced above is accessible to anyone and can be independently verified.
What Happened When We Contacted Google
Over the course of six weeks, we used every available channel to report the fraudulent DMCA filings to Google. The timeline below documents each communication and the response we received.
Communication Timeline
| Date | Action Taken | Google’s Response |
|---|---|---|
| April 7 onwards | Counter-notices filed for every fraudulent removal through Google’s official form | No reply, no acknowledgment, no status update for the majority of filings |
| April 13 | Formal pattern abuse report emailed to Google’s removals team, documenting the coordinated nature of the attacks with all reference IDs and Lumen links | No response |
| April 17 | Public report posted in Google Search Central Community | No response from Google |
| April 23 | Formal legal letter sent by our legal counsel to Google’s designated DMCA agent, via email and certified mail | Automated template response requesting a standard DMCA checklist, treating the letter as a takedown request |
| April 23 | Reply sent clarifying this is a fraud report, not a takedown request. Sent to three Google email addresses | Auto-reply from an unrelated department |
| April 27 | Google’s removals team responds to the thread | States “the content was not removed in response to a copyright removal request” for all URLs listed in our correspondence |
Google’s April 27 Response
The April 27 reply deserves specific attention. Google’s removals team stated that none of the URLs we reported had been removed through a DMCA copyright request.
This statement was incorrect, for a specific and verifiable reason.
The URLs listed in Google’s response contained processing errors. Hyphens had been stripped from multiple Polish and Czech URLs, and at least one URL was truncated mid-word. One URL contained a Cyrillic character substitution, where a Latin letter had been replaced with a visually similar character from a different alphabet.
Meanwhile, a simple site: search on Google for any of the correct URLs tells a different story:
The DMCA removal notice is visible at the bottom of the page, directly contradicting Google’s own response.
We replied on the same day with the correct URLs and a direct Lumen Database link for each one, providing independent, publicly verifiable proof that Google had processed DMCA removal requests for every page we reported.
What This Tells Us
Six weeks of communications across every available channel produced no meaningful action from Google. Counter-notices were ignored. A pattern abuse report was ignored. A legal letter was misclassified as a takedown request, and the one substantive response contained processing errors that led to an incorrect conclusion.
At no point during this process did a human at Google review the evidence we provided, which included 22 Lumen Database entries, a documented re-attack timeline, and proof that the filer had impersonated government entities under penalty of perjury.
What This Means for the Industry
The DMCA abuse pattern documented in this article is not limited to VIP-Grinders or to iGaming. Any website that ranks for commercially valuable keywords is a potential target. The economics of the attack are the same regardless of industry.
The Cost of an Attack vs the Cost of Recovery
| For the Attacker | For the Victim |
|---|---|
| Filing a fake DMCA complaint: free | Lost search traffic during removal: immediate |
| Time required to file: minutes | Time to file counter-notice and wait for reinstatement: 10 to 14+ business days |
| Identity verification required: none | Legal paperwork required for counter-notice: yes, under penalty of perjury |
| Risk of consequences: minimal | Risk of permanent ranking loss: significant |
| Cost to re-file after reinstatement: free | Cost of legal counsel to escalate: thousands of dollars |
The asymmetry is clear. The attacker invests minutes and zero dollars. The victim invests weeks and potentially thousands of dollars, with no guarantee of a permanent resolution.
Who Is Affected
Any publisher or business that depends on Google search traffic is vulnerable to this tactic, from crypto casino affiliates to e-commerce and SaaS companies. The risk is highest in industries where:
- Search rankings directly drive revenue (affiliates, e-commerce, SaaS, media)
- Competition for keywords is intense and a small number of positions capture most of the traffic
- Competitors operate anonymously or from jurisdictions where legal enforcement is difficult
iGaming is currently the most visible target because all three conditions apply. But the same tactic can be used in any market where removing a competitor’s page from Google has direct financial value.
What Needs to Change
The data from our case points to specific gaps in how Google currently handles DMCA complaints:
- 1Verification before removal: Currently, Google removes first and verifies never. Even basic checks on the claimant’s identity or whether the claimed work exists would filter out the most obvious fraudulent filings.
- 2Protection for documented abuse targets: When a domain has been repeatedly targeted by proven fraudulent filings, future complaints against that domain should receive additional review before being processed automatically.
- 3Consequences for fraudulent filers: A filer who claims to own the Ontario Lottery and the Polish State Broadcaster should not be able to continue submitting complaints. Banning accounts tied to proven fraud would raise the cost of abuse.
- 4Responsive abuse reporting: Pattern abuse reports submitted by affected site owners should receive a response. In our case, every report was ignored.
These are not requests for special treatment. They are basic safeguards that would protect any website from having its content removed through fabricated copyright claims.
Methodology
The data in this article is based on first-hand documentation of DMCA abuse targeting vip-grinders.com between mid-March and early May 2026. All findings were gathered using publicly available tools and verified against independent sources.
How We Tracked the Attacks
- Google Search Console: Impression and click data was monitored daily. Pages showing sudden drops to zero impressions were flagged for investigation.
- Lumen Database: Each flagged page was cross-referenced with the Lumen Database (lumendatabase.org), a public archive maintained by the Berkman Klein Center at Harvard Law School that records DMCA complaints processed by Google.
- Google site: searches: Affected URLs were verified using site: searches in incognito mode. Pages removed via DMCA display a notice at the bottom of the search results page confirming the removal.
- Counter-notice records: Every counter-notice filed was logged with date, reference ID (where provided by Google), and outcome.
- Communication records: All correspondence with Google, including emails to their removals team, DMCA agent, and abuse reporting addresses, was archived.
Limitations
This article documents one site’s experience. While the patterns described here are consistent with reports from other affected publishers, we can only speak to what we directly observed and recorded.
The 22 pages identified represent confirmed DMCA removals with corresponding Lumen Database entries. Additional pages may have been removed without our knowledge, given that Google did not notify us of approximately 70% of the filings we eventually identified.
We do not know who is behind the attacks. The 9 identities used in the filings are assumed to be fake based on the evidence presented in this article. We have not named any suspected party because we do not have confirmed attribution.