Reputation Rhino review
Reputation Rhino is a New York reputation-management firm with a long public history, a current Inc. 5000 profile and a small but verified set of B2B client reviews. Its website also exposes several issues worth checking before purchase: two different legal entities appear across current sources, the guarantee language is broader than the site's own 2026 buying guidance, and one published review-management case study describes a solicitation practice that conflicts with Google's current review policy.
Reviewed September 2026
Legal identity
The brand's current public records point to both a New York LLC and a Florida corporation
Reputation Rhino's public Terms still define the contracting company as Reputation Rhino LLC. BBB also records Reputation Rhino LLC as a New York business incorporated in July 2011. Clutch's current business verification, however, identifies Reputation Rhino Inc., a Florida corporation formed in March 2021, as the verified legal entity behind the profile.
The Terms say that purchases of reputation-management and online-marketing services are governed by an agreement between the client and Reputation Rhino LLC. The page does not explain the relationship between that LLC and Reputation Rhino Inc.
Clutch's Premier Verified record identifies Reputation Rhino Inc., Florida entity P21000030500, formed March 31, 2021 and active when checked in 2026.
The federal trademark history shows Reputation Rhino LLC as the original registrant and Reputation Rhino Inc. as the current recorded owner following an ownership update in 2021.
The proposal should name the exact entity issuing the invoice, holding client obligations and standing behind the 30-day guarantee. This should be resolved in writing before payment.
Sources: Reputation Rhino Terms, BBB, Clutch verification and trademark ownership history.
Leadership and growth
The leadership presentation has changed, while older directory records still show the founder as CEO
Reputation Rhino's current team page identifies Dave Fulk as CEO and Todd William as founder. Inc.'s 2026 company profile also lists Fulk as the company's leader. BBB still names William as CEO, which appears to be an older management record rather than the current presentation on the company site.
Named CEO on Reputation Rhino's team page, Clutch and Inc.'s current profile.
A former attorney who founded the agency and remains publicly identified with the business.
Inc. reports 93% three-year growth and an 11–50 employee company-size band.
Sources: Reputation Rhino team page, Inc. 5000 profile, Clutch and BBB.
Service model
The agency's core work remains search-led, with review management and broader digital services around it
Reputation Rhino's public service pages describe an ORM model built around removal attempts, suppression, SEO, content publishing and monitoring. The company also offers review management, PR, social media and other digital-marketing services.
Direct removal is reserved for content with a viable policy, privacy or legal route
The company's own guidance acknowledges that legitimate news coverage, court records and valid negative reviews generally cannot be deleted simply because they are unfavorable.
Search campaigns use new assets, published content, SEO and link building
Current and historical case studies show the agency creating microsites, professional profiles, interviews and feature stories, then supporting them with search optimization.
Review work includes monitoring, responses, outreach, removal attempts and reporting
The service is positioned for local and multi-location businesses and is distinct from suppression work targeting unfavorable search results.
Sources: solutions overview, search-result removal, review management and ORM guide.
Published search methods
Some case studies disclose tactics that buyers should ask about directly
Reputation Rhino publishes more methodological detail than many ORM firms. That makes it possible to see techniques that would otherwise remain hidden inside delivery.
The heart-surgeon and telecom-CEO case studies describe links from an “industry-leading Private Blog Network” as part of the suppression strategy.
The page describes real visitors sending click traffic to search-result pages as part of the campaign.
The current guide says weak suppression tactics can create later algorithmic problems and tells buyers to confirm ownership of campaign assets. A proposal should therefore identify whether the older published methods are still used and under what controls.
Sources: heart-surgeon case study, telecom CEO case study, private-equity CEO case study and 2026 pricing guide.
Review solicitation
One published case study describes a practice that conflicts with Google's current review policy
Reputation Rhino's restaurant case study says the client supplied customer contact details and that outreach targeted people who had a positive experience before directing them to visible review sites including Google Business Profile.
Google currently prohibits merchants from discouraging negative reviews or selectively soliciting positive reviews. The case study does not establish how the campaign would be implemented under today's policy, but its wording is sufficiently specific that a buyer using Reputation Rhino for Google review acquisition should ask for the present workflow.
Google permits merchants to invite genuine reviews. Its current policy requires that the process does not selectively solicit only favorable reviewers or manipulate the rating.
Sources: Reputation Rhino restaurant case study and Google Business Profile prohibited and restricted content policy.
Guarantee and public terms
The 30-day refund promise is clear, while the general Terms disclaim most other warranties
Reputation Rhino publishes a separate guarantee page promising a full refund if a client is dissatisfied within the first 30 days. The main Terms apply to service purchases as well as website use and contain broad warranty and liability limitations.
The guarantee page says a dissatisfied client can notify the company during the first 30 days and receive a full refund. It does not present the promise as contingent on proving a specific failure.
The Terms state that services, software and reports are provided “as is” and disclaim warranties concerning quality, performance, reliability and accuracy.
The Terms cap Reputation Rhino's liability at the amount paid for the services giving rise to the claim and exclude indirect, special, incidental and consequential damages.
The public Terms reviewed for this article do not state a standard contract length, renewal rule or cancellation notice period. Those points need to come from the proposal or client agreement.
The guarantee should be tied to the same legal entity named in the signed engagement because the current public sources use both Reputation Rhino LLC and Reputation Rhino Inc.
Sources: Our Guarantee and Terms & Conditions.
Pricing
Reputation Rhino publishes market guidance, while its own campaign pricing remains proposal-based
The current 2026 cost guide describes industry pricing tiers and advises buyers to separate service fees from external costs. The page does not function as a current Reputation Rhino rate card, and several dollar signs or leading digits are not rendering correctly in the live pricing table when checked.
The current service pages route prospective clients to a consultation. Reputation Rhino does not publish a standard monthly package table for its own ORM campaigns.
Clutch lists an undisclosed hourly rate. Among six reviews reporting cost, the most common project band is $10,000–$49,999.
Reputation Rhino's current pricing article is useful for procurement questions around hard costs, asset ownership and termination, but its published ranges should not be treated as quotes from the agency.
Sources: 2026 ORM cost guide and Clutch pricing profile.
Independent client evidence
Clutch supplies a small verified review base with unusually detailed project records
Reputation Rhino's strongest independent client evidence is on Clutch. The volume is limited, but several reviews contain project costs, named organizations, service scope and interview-based verification rather than short star ratings alone.
The corpus is more useful for evaluating delivery than the agency's own testimonials, although seven reviews remain a small sample for a company that says it serves hundreds of businesses worldwide.
Current litigation record
A competing reputation firm filed a Florida lawsuit against Reputation Rhino Inc. in June 2026
A Sarasota County case index records a complaint filed on June 5, 2026 by Web Presence, LLC, which does business as NetReputation, against Reputation Rhino Inc. The available case summary says the plaintiff alleges tortious interference involving a competitor relationship.
These are allegations in a newly filed civil case, not findings by a court. Reputation Insider did not treat the complaint summary as evidence that the alleged conduct occurred and did not find a merits judgment in the public material reviewed for this article.
Procurement diligence
A buyer can resolve the main public-record questions before signing
The public Terms and current third-party business verification do not point to the same entity.
State the notice method, refund timing and which payments or pass-through expenses are covered.
The case library references PBN links and crowdsourced click activity. A current proposal should identify the methods planned for the account and who owns the resulting assets.
For review-management work, confirm that outreach is neutral and does not selectively route only satisfied customers to public review platforms.
Reputation Insider verdict
Reputation Rhino has useful third-party project evidence, with several public-record issues that deserve contract-level clarification
The agency has operated for more than a decade, appears on the 2026 Inc. 5000 and has a small set of detailed verified Clutch reviews. Its public case library also gives buyers more visibility into actual search tactics than is typical in this category.
The main diligence questions come from the company's own materials. Current sources use both LLC and Inc. entities, the guarantee page sits beside broad warranty disclaimers, and one review-management case study describes selective outreach that does not fit Google's current review-solicitation rules.
A larger buyer should use the proposal to settle legal entity, refund mechanics, campaign methods, asset ownership and review-acquisition practices before work begins.
