Reputation Resolutions review
Reputation Resolutions is a Colorado-based reputation management firm focused on content removal, search-result suppression, review management and reputation work for individuals, executives and companies.
Reviewed September 2026
Agency record
Sources: BBB business profile, Reputation Resolutions About and Anthony Will profile.
Company record
The public corporate record is clearer than the agency’s scale claims
BBB records provide a useful chronology for the operating company. Reputation Resolutions separately reports its client count and international reach on its own site; those figures are company disclosures rather than independently audited totals.
The agency also uses 2013 as its founding year across current service pages.
The current BBB profile shows an A+ rating. BBB states that customer reviews do not determine its letter grade.
BBB lists Digital Revolution, LLC as an alternate name and identifies Anthony Will as CEO.
This reach is stated by Reputation Resolutions on its current About and enterprise pages. Reputation Insider did not find an independent source that verifies the total client count or country count.
Sources: BBB and Reputation Resolutions About.
Service scope
The current offer extends well beyond conventional search suppression
The agency now sells direct removal, suppression, review work, executive and corporate programs, crisis support and AI-related services. The delivery model differs by service, so buyers should avoid treating the entire catalog as one standardized product.
The agency evaluates source removal, platform-policy requests and Google de-indexing depending on the content type.
Current suppression materials describe creation and strengthening of owned profiles, press, structured data and other pages intended to outrank unwanted results.
The corporate catalog includes ongoing monitoring, executive search work and pre-transaction or pre-hire public-record reviews.
Current pages market work across ChatGPT, Google AI Overviews, Gemini and Claude, largely by addressing the web sources those systems use.
Source: current service catalog.
Commercial model
Pay-for-results is clearest for direct removal, while broader reputation work is separately scoped
Reputation Resolutions does not publish a standard fee schedule. Its pricing page explains the buying model and gives general industry ranges, then directs buyers to an itemized case-specific quote.
For removal engagements, the agency says the fee becomes due after the specified content is confirmed removed. The current Terms of Service also state that removal work is results-based, with details governed by the signed services agreement.
The agency does not publish its own fixed removal or suppression prices. The figures shown on its pricing guide are described as industry ranges rather than Reputation Resolutions rates.
Current CEO-reputation materials say suppression and build work is scoped in writing. Buyers should confirm milestones, maintenance periods and what constitutes completion before signing.
Clutch currently lists a $1,000+ minimum project and a $100–149 hourly band. Those marketplace fields are not a substitute for the agency’s written quote.
Sources: pricing guide, Terms of Service and CEO reputation service page.
Guarantee language and contract terms
The website uses stronger guarantee wording than the current Terms of Service
This is the most important commercial wording issue in the public materials. Buyers should rely on the signed services agreement for the enforceable remedy rather than reading a service-page headline as a contractual promise.
The same page says payment is collected after confirmed removal and presents the offer as results-based.
The Terms explain that third-party platforms, publishers and search engines remain outside the agency’s control.
The public Terms expressly say client services are governed by a separate written services agreement and that the signed agreement controls if the documents conflict. Procurement should ask for the exact success condition, invoice trigger, reappearance treatment and termination rules in that document.
Sources: content-removal page and Terms of Service, updated July 12, 2026.
Case evidence and methods
The case library shows useful operational detail, but most outcomes cannot be independently checked
Reputation Resolutions publishes both recent and older examples. The current case-study category explicitly says examples are anonymized, and some pages say identifying details have been altered to protect clients.
The agency says the practice’s average rating fell from 4.6 to below 3 before remediation. The article is explicit that client details were anonymized and altered, so the underlying account cannot be independently reconstructed from the page alone.
The page describes a personal website, publication placements, backlinks and a “click-through” campaign using the agency’s own network of U.S.-based searchers. The client is identified only as “Client A.”
Another court-record case says the agency used a network of thousands of searchers to generate engagement metrics for preferred results. These pages remain public, while current suppression materials emphasize owned assets, press and structured data. Reputation Insider did not find a current public statement confirming whether the older engagement method is still used.
Sources: 2026 healthcare case study, engineering-executive case and court-record suppression case.
Independent user evidence
Public customer feedback is positive, while the strongest independent review corpus is still small
The agency’s own testimonial library is much larger than the independent review sets. Reputation Insider therefore treats the platforms separately rather than combining them into one rating.
The three reviews are favorable and include project context, but the sample is too small to establish a broad pattern of current client experience. One visible review is marked verified by Clutch.
The current complaints page reports zero complaints. BBB notes that its complaint information generally covers a three-year reporting period, so this should not be read as a lifetime count.
The company-operated testimonial site displays 228 items and mixes public reviews with redacted emails and text messages. It is useful for seeing the company’s selected client feedback, but it is not independent evidence.
Historical public record
A 2020 federal lawsuit named the company and its CEO, but the claims were not decided on their merits against them
The case should be described with its procedural outcome because the allegations were broad and involved several reputation businesses.
The Central District of California dismissed the claims against Will and Digital Revolution without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction in January 2021. That dismissal did not determine whether the allegations were true or false.
A later Southern District of New York order addressed the remaining defendants and discussed the plaintiff’s allegations. Reputation Resolutions and Will were no longer among those remaining defendants because their California claims had already been dismissed on jurisdictional grounds.
Sources: California judgment of dismissal and June 2022 SDNY order.
Procurement checks
The written services agreement carries more weight than the marketing pages
The public Terms deliberately leave engagement-specific liability and commercial mechanics to the signed agreement. A buyer should obtain that document before evaluating the apparent simplicity of pay-after-result pricing.
For each URL or review, specify whether success means source deletion, platform removal, Google de-indexing, a ranking threshold or another measurable event.
Ask for the fee structure, term, maintenance period and renewal mechanics for services that continue after a one-time removal.
Older public case studies describe this method explicitly. Buyers with strict SEO, platform-policy or governance requirements should request the current methodology in writing.
The current Terms state that the agency is not a law firm and may coordinate with independent legal partners. The agreement should identify responsibility, confidentiality and additional costs where outside counsel is involved.
Buyer fit
The model is easiest to evaluate when the desired outcome can be defined before work begins
The results-based removal model gives procurement a measurable payment event, while the agency also has suppression and corporate capabilities when removal is unavailable.
Official fees are quote-led, the independent Clutch review base is small and most case studies preserve client anonymity.
Reputation Insider verdict
Reputation Resolutions has a verifiable operating history and an unusually explicit removal-pricing model, with several points that still require contract-level diligence
The public record supports a Colorado reputation firm operating since 2013 under Digital Revolution, LLC, with current BBB accreditation and a defined results-based structure for direct removal work.
The areas requiring closer review are equally concrete. Public pricing does not disclose actual agency fees, the current Terms reject guaranteed outcomes while a removal page uses guarantee language, and older case studies describe engagement-based suppression tactics that are absent from the current methodology pages.
Independent client evidence is favorable but limited in volume on Clutch. For a larger engagement, the signed services agreement and a current explanation of suppression methods would provide more useful diligence than the agency’s self-reported client count or testimonial library.
