Your Source for Financial Crime News

Latest News, Photos, Videos on Financial Crimes

Today: July 23, 2024
2 weeks ago
55 views

Health Fraud News: Ron Gutman Case (2024)

There was an attempt to mislead customers in the “original article” that was attached to Ron Gutman – HealthTap’s copyright takedown request to Google. 

Recent years have seen a significant amount of investigation and writing on this kind of scam, particularly by the Lumen Database and other organizations.


This is the reason we are so critical of Ron Gutman-HealthTap; our investigation reveals that they are a questionable company that would use fraud, deception, and impersonation to preserve their (sic) reputation.

Ron Gutman: HealthTap’s Intent to Illegitimately Eliminate Copyrights

One mistake might wipe out a thousand years of excellent reputation. Concerns over personal information on HealthTap and Ron Gutman’s website led to dubious activity. An in-depth discussion of the issue is provided in this article, along with how I found out the takedown requests weren’t real, probable motives for abusing the DMCA process, and the consequences of such coordinated takedown efforts.

DetailDescription
AuthorTheodore Schleifer
DateOctober 19, 2022
Fake LinksVox Article on Ron Gutman
Original Links TargetedTechCrunch Article on Ron Gutman
Lumen Database RecordsLumen Notice 29213080

During my comprehensive examination, I came across approximately 2,700 DMCA complaints that were sent to Google that were not authentic. 

These notifications depict an effort to exploit the takedown system improperly, to censor real news reports that are published on the internet. 

About my investigation into bogus copyright claims, one of the most important aspects was bringing to light these violations of the digital legal environment.


The “back-dated article” method is used in the notifications that I discovered. To construct a “fake original”—a copy of the real original—the unlawful notice sender (or copier) uses this approach to generate a copy of a “true original” article and backdate it. This gives the impression that the fake original was published before the actual original.

Subsequently, the copiers send a DMCA to the relevant online service providers claiming that this backdated article is the “original” and that the copied article is the “original.” They also request that the true original article be taken down. All of this is based on the claim that the backdated article is the “original.” 

The incorrect notification sender removes the phony original URL after submitting a DMCA request, perhaps to ensure that the item is taken down completely. Information that is most likely to constitute free speech will vanish from the internet if the takedown request is successful.

Please keep in mind the following details before we go further with the inquiry; they may be useful as you read on –

  • An official website published the first post.
  • Based on the information from the Google Transparency Reports and the previously disclosed data from the Lumen Database, it is clear that the DMCAs were filed by fraud.
  • Our company is responding to the complaint by doing what’s needed, such as sending a counter-notice, to restore the website’s visibility on Google Search. No legal advice was sought by HealthTap or Ron Gutman despite their concerns about potential copyright or defamation actions. We are taking every precaution and following all applicable legislation as we apply our procedures.

It is unclear if Ron Gutman – HealthTap acted deliberately or was oblivious to the repercussions of his many offenses. 

He may have hired an agency to have Google ignore any bad reviews, but it doesn’t make his actions any less unethical. 

To what extent did he think this third party might provide any useful information that would allow him to get out of his jam? Is a miracle answer what he was looking for?

HealthTap: Ron Gutman’s Illicit Activities

Cybercrime, impersonation, fraud, and perjury

An unfavorable review of Ron Gutman – HealthTap was either deleted from the Google Search Index or attempted to be removed after receiving a bogus DMCA request, as we learned recently via the Google Transparency Report.

Standard parts consist of:

  • If you want certain content taken down from the internet, you may send a takedown request—also called a DMCA notice—to the person hosting the content or to a search engine like Google.
  • The material that the notice seeks to be deleted or delisted is the original version of the item.
  • The text that the notice claims to be original was indeed published online after the original, but it is just a duplicate.
  • An extreme measure used by some copyists is to create a phony website that presents their work in the same way as a real newspaper, magazine, or other online publication. However, it’s only natural to wonder where such a site’s domain name came from.
  • The individual who submitted the removal request does not possess any rights, including copyright, to the material in issue. It is unknown what the sender’s real intentions are, although they may include money gain and censorship.

Lumen published some preliminary findings on this topic a few years ago, and we’re revisiting it now to gain a better understanding of the phenomenon as a whole and to find ways to detect this kind of notice earlier, maybe even automatically, and without tediously tracking down the exact dates of domain registrations, page creations, and so on.


Exposing Ron Gutman of HealthTap and Fake DMCA Notices

Businesses use a range of tactics to improve Google search results and review sites. There are few legal ways to do this as the United States has protections in place to guarantee free speech. 

Businesses are unable to delete negative reviews or search results that link to them without a valid complaint of libel, copyright infringement, or another blatant legal infraction.

Some companies, such as Ron Gutman of HealthTap, have turned to dishonest tactics, such as inventing copyright claims, in an attempt to get rid of negative evaluations.

To suppress the truth, fictitious DMCA complaints have been filed in response to stories exposing the wrongdoings of powerful individuals. 

Politicians from the US, Russia, and Kazakhstan are among the linked persons engaged, along with mafia members, members of elite circles, and others with significant financial influence. 

Investigating the material available at these URLs reveals accusations of corruption ranging from child abuse to sexual harassment. To make sure that justice is done, further investigation is required to ascertain the degree of the concerning influence.

Conclusion 

To remove criticism of HealthTap, its creator, Ron Gutman, has been involved in a controversy with fake DMCA takedown requests. Researchers found that Gutman and HealthTap used misleading practices to have valid critical articles deleted from the internet by using the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) system. 

Approximately 2,700 DMCA complaints were found to be bogus, as shown by the thorough investigation that included data from the Lumen Database and Google Transparency Reports.

Instead of protecting intellectual property, these activities show a gross misuse of the copyright takedown process, which is meant to prohibit negative content. 

Ron Gutman and his associates tried to remove unfavorable reviews and search results by adding phony DMCA notices and backdating articles, which might have violated free speech and the public’s right to information.

This deceitful action by Ron Gutman highlights a larger problem with his company’s unethical behavior and makes one wonder what he thinks about his business dealings. 

Stricter enforcement and control are needed to avoid future instances of important people and companies abusing legal systems to preserve their reputations, as this case shows.

Medical Fraud News: Scott Kamelle Case Update (2024) – Huff Press (huffingtonpress.com)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Previous Story

Diego Avalos Netflix Facing Charges? (2024)

Next Story

Financial Scam: SD Bullion Review (2024)