A copyright complaint can remove a page from Google’s search results based on a notice, even if ownership claims are later disputed or inaccurate. Press Gazette saw this happen twice this year.

In late June, the journalism trade outlet reported that a second piece of its reporting about the marketing company Clickout Media had been removed from Google search following an anonymous complaint under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

An earlier March removal affected the original investigation in the same series. Both complaints cited unrelated content as the source. Press Gazette called both complaints spurious.

The details of who filed them are still a bit unclear. The March notice came through a “US Hub” from an anonymous private entity, while the June notice was from a sender the outlet couldn’t identify. In both cases, a live, original page was removed from Google’s results, and Press Gazette questions the ownership claims behind each notice.

In March, that supposedly copied work was a 2024 article on the tech site The Verge, which had nothing to do with the complaint. In June, it was a since-deleted month-old forum post about online casinos. Neither matched the reporting it was intended to target.

The March takedown didn’t stop at one article. It also removed a follow-up on the same story from another trade publication.

How The Removal Works

Under the DMCA, someone claiming to hold a copyright can send Google a notice requesting that it remove a page from search results. The page can be delisted if Google acts on the notice. The burden of disputing it then falls on the site owner.

Google’s account of the system leaves room for this outcome. In its Transparency Report, Google says that people who submit requests may provide inaccurate information, that it is not always able to verify the accuracy of a request, and that it cannot always notify a site owner before content is removed.

The law doesn’t require Google to decide whether the copyright claim itself is valid, which is why a disputed page can stay out of results for a stretch even after the owner objects. Roger Montti has laid out why the statute leaves Google little room to move. When a page is delisted, Google adds a line at the bottom of the affected results page. It indicates that the results were removed due to a DMCA complaint and provides a link to the Lumen database, where the notice is stored. A user only notices this gap if they read that far down.

A Tactic That Has Surfaced Before

Copyright takedowns have previously targeted search results. Back in 2018, I reported on a tactic in which people posing as rights holders submitted fake DMCA notices to push competitors lower in search rankings. Sometimes, they even used names similar to real companies to make their claims look credible. These targets ranged from pirate sites to at least one small business challenged by a competitor.

The weakness appears in other removal tools too. Roger Montti covered a Google bug last August that let anonymous attackers use the public URL removal tool to deindex live pages, and one site lost more than 400 articles that were still online.

Google’s Danny Sullivan said that at the time, there was no way to prevent those removals. Although it was a different exploit, the core issue was similar. A removal system designed for a specific purpose can unexpectedly become a means of taking down content someone wishes to disappear.

The Press Gazette case is part of a larger discussion about the company and its coverage. The report describes a parasite SEO operation in which a company purchases established websites to boost its Google presence. SEJ looked into this practice in November, during which Google defended its efforts to enforce site reputation rules as the European Commission began its investigation.

The Scale Is Hard To Measure

It’s quite challenging to determine how often false or disputed notices are successful. Lumen, which operates as a research project, holds tens of millions of takedown notices covering billions of URLs. Researchers have tapped into this resource to reveal organized campaigns of copyright abuse, often aimed at reputation management.

Lumen itself points out that having a notice in its archive doesn’t prove the request was valid or that a platform actually acted on it. The record simply shows what was requested, not whether the claim was accurate.

Google says it declines requests it identifies as abusive or inaccurate, and Techdirt has described Google as more aggressive than most sites at rejecting questionable DMCA notices. In the March case, SEO consultant Glenn Gabe wrote on X that the complaint clearing Google’s checks surprised him, calling it a takedown that did not make sense. The June complaint was still in effect when Press Gazette reported it.

Why This Matters

The takedown process might seem like a small step, as the person filing a notice doesn’t face many immediate real-world consequences. Making a false claim doesn’t cost much either. The person or entity targeted will need to notice the removal, file a counter-notice, and then go through the process, which can feel a bit daunting.

The imbalance affects how long a page is missing. When Press Gazette’s March article was removed, it was quickly restored within about a day after they reached out to Google. However, the June article was still missing when they published their follow-up. In cases like this, reach can affect how quickly a removal gets reviewed. The news organization was able to publicly raise the first removal, something most sites can’t do.

A page removed due to a bad complaint can remain out of Google’s results for the duration of the counter-notice process, which takes at least days and often longer. For a page that brings in leads or sales, that gap comes with a direct cost. The removal also happens quietly, so a site owner may not realize a page is gone until traffic drops.

What You Can Do

You can cut down the time a takedown goes unnoticed. Google’s removal line sits at the bottom of the results page for affected queries, so searching your own key headlines and pages can turn one up. A sudden drop in impressions or clicks for a single URL in Search Console can be an early flag worth checking. The Lumen database lets you search for notices that name your domain.

If a page is removed and you believe the claim is wrong, Google’s process permits a counter-notice. Filing it quickly matters, because the restoration clock starts only once Google receives it. Google’s DMCA help pages lay out the steps and what a counter-notice has to include. The 10- to 14-business-day wait after a valid counter-notice is statutory.

Holding on to timestamped copies of your own work helps, too. A public archive record of a page, with its publication date, hands you evidence of original authorship if a later complaint claims you copied it.

None of this prevents a complaint from being filed. It narrows the window between removal and response, which is the part you control.

Looking Ahead

Some of the legal reasons behind this issue are beyond Google’s control, fueling a discussion about whether the takedown system should be updated.

This debate might continue for years. The more pressing question is how quickly you would notice if one of your pages suddenly disappeared. Watching your own removals is a thin defense, but for now, it’s the best option available.

More Resources

Featured Image: Summit Art Creations/Shutterstock