In Fairness Review is not for everyone. Sadly, some reputational harm is warranted and deserved while other situations are beyond the scope of our service and outside the relevant expertise of our Editorial Board. As a baseline, we seek to consider cases in which we believe there to be a substantial likelihood that:

  • • The disparaging content is materially or entirely false;
  • • The disparaging content is true, but presented in a manner that is misleading;
  • • The disparaging content is true, but inappropriate,
    given the persons, circumstances, severity or ascertainable facts of the matter.

More specifically, we expect to consider cases of the following kinds:

Content maligning personal character, e.g., alleging a lack of honor or integrity, truthfulness, respect or care for others, toleration or generosity; holding reprehensible views (e.g., racism, sexism); engaging in deplorable personal conduct; engaging in unfair or deceptive business practices; promoting harm; plagiarism, etc.

Content alleging civil wrongdoing, whether or not formally adjudicated, e.g., claims of professional malpractice, negligence, fraud; harassment, intimidation; breaches of contract, responsibility or trust, etc.

Content alleging criminal wrongdoing, whether or not formally adjudicated, limited to white collar and non-violent crimes, e.g., embezzlement, tax evasion, bribery, conspiracy, falsification of corporate records, insider trading, self-dealing, perjury, etc.

We will not consider:

Content alleging violent crimes of any degree (murder, kidnapping, rape, assault, abuse);

Content alleging threats to national security (terrorism, treason, espionage)

Content pertaining to family matters and disputes.

The above list is intended as a guideline only. It is not intended to be exhaustive or definitive. In Fairness Review reserves the right to refuse consideration of cases that we deem to be inconsistent with our mission or process.