DMCA: how casinos disappear from Google  

A key page may still appear as indexed in Google’s monitoring tools even though it has already disappeared from search results. Ivana Flynn, co-founder of DMCABoss and an SEO specialist, describes a system where a procedure designed to protect content creators can be misused to remove competitors’ pages.  

A profitable page can disappear without clear warning  

According to Ivana Flynn, a page may no longer be visible in Google’s results even though the indexing monitoring tool still indicates that it is indexed. Furthermore, notifications are reportedly not always sent: some removals are flagged, whilst others may occur without the publisher immediately understanding the cause.  

Faced with a sudden drop in traffic, SEO managers may initially look for a penalty, an algorithm change or a technical issue. However, according to Flynn, a copyright complaint may be the cause of the disappearance.  

Flynn explains that operators’ websites often have a relatively limited number of particularly profitable pages, notably those relating to sports betting, the casino or the live dealer casino. An attack targeting these pages can therefore cause significant damage. Affiliate websites generally have more pages, which means the attack must be broadened to achieve a comparable effect.  

A copyright protection law misused  

The mechanism is based on the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, a US law passed in 1998 to protect works published on the internet against unauthorised reproduction. In principle, the procedure allows a rights holder to report the unlawful use of their content. The problem described in the interview arises when someone fraudulently claims ownership of content in order to have a rival page removed.  

An individual may submit a request to Google claiming that a piece of content belongs to them when this is not the case. If the request results in the page being removed from the search results, the legitimate owner must then contest the complaint in order to have it reinstated.  

Fraudulent complaints are sometimes said to be extremely rudimentary. Flynn claims to have come across cases where the addresses cited had no real connection to the work allegedly copied. She even describes situations where a page was accused of copying another page belonging to the same website. Despite the apparent inconsistency of these cases, removals may still be carried out.  

Why this method appeals to attackers  

Attacks on search engine rankings are nothing new. Malicious links, denial-of-service attacks and the manipulation of click signals are among the methods mentioned in the interview. However, these can be resource-intensive and produce uncertain results. According to Flynn, a false copyright infringement complaint has a far more worrying characteristic: it can be filed very quickly and at virtually no cost.  

‘Visibility disappears,’ is essentially what Flynn explains when describing the consequences of a takedown.   

She also believes that attackers target the most important URLs rather than a randomly chosen page.  

The real trap begins after the first reinstatement 

Having a page reinstated the first time does not necessarily mean the issue is resolved. Attackers can file multiple complaints against the same address. The page reappears in Google following a review, then another complaint is processed and it disappears again. According to Flynn, these repeated cycles can result in a page being unavailable more often than it is visible, gradually damaging its ranking.  

The second removal also highlights a weakness in the appeal process. Flynn states that, after an address has already been reinstated, the system may instruct users not to resubmit an address that has previously been processed. The attacker could therefore resubmit their complaint, whilst the victim would face greater difficulties in repeating their appeal.  

“If repeated attacks are permitted, repeated reinstatements must also be allowed,” the specialist essentially argues.   

She says she has found a method to deal with this scenario, but refuses to disclose publicly how it works to prevent attackers from seeking to circumvent it.  

Twelve hours or several months: time is money 

In this battle, the duration of the downtime is crucial. A page that is down for twelve hours may limit the damage. A strategic page that is inaccessible for several weeks or months, on the other hand, may result in the loss of a considerable proportion of its traffic and revenue. 

The stakes become even higher when several profitable pages are targeted simultaneously. Flynn explains that attackers can identify a site’s most important URLs and automate new complaints as soon as they are restored.  

Even after a dispute has been validated, the actual reinstatement in the index is not always immediate. Flynn generally cites a delay of 12 to 24 hours, with some cases being resolved more quickly, whilst others remain stuck. After 36 to 48 hours, she considers that further intervention may be necessary.  

Having dealt with a large number of cases, Flynn says she regularly sees teams drafting lengthy legal explanations. However, she recommends that appeals be brief and precise: identify the page in question, the corresponding complaint, explain that it is a fraudulent removal, and provide evidence to establish that the content was published earlier. In her view, a few lines are usually sufficient.  

She also advises against using certain appeal channels, as these would result in much longer delays. The interview notes that choosing the wrong route can turn what would normally be a quick resolution into a wait of several months.  

Another recommendation: deal with URLs individually. Flynn explains that bulk requests risk being routed to a slower processing channel. Her organisation therefore identifies the pages that have been removed, links each one to the corresponding complaint, and keeps a precise record of requests and responses.  

Not all visible complaints result in a removal  

Finding a complaint does not necessarily mean that Google has acted on it.  

Flynn recommends first identifying the pages that are actually missing from the results before lodging any appeals. A site may have a large number of recorded complaints, yet only a fraction of them will have actually resulted in a removal.  

Flynn advises starting with the most important pages, but then addressing all removals. Her reasoning is that the accumulation of unchallenged issues could eventually undermine trust in the site.  

It was against this backdrop that DMCABoss, of which Flynn is a co-founder, was developed. The service monitors the pages specified, searches for corresponding complaints and checks whether they appear in Google. In this way, it seeks to distinguish between a page being removed due to a copyright complaint and an indexing issue of a different nature.  

The tool can also prepare certain information needed to contest a takedown and search for an archived version of the page. However, human intervention is still required to complete the process. 

Should Google carry out more thorough checks on complainants?  

For Flynn, a sustainable solution cannot rely solely on the victims. She believes that Google should strengthen its verification of those filing complaints and clearly allow for the same removal to be contested multiple times when a website is subjected to successive attacks. 

Her wish is explicit: ‘Verify the attackers.’  

In particular, she proposes verifying the complainant’s identity or professional details. Flynn admits, however, that she is not optimistic about the system changing any time soon. According to her analysis, the current mechanism was not designed to deal with repetitive campaigns used as a competitive weapon. She nevertheless believes that some of the necessary information already exists, as the system is aware that an address has previously been recovered.  

After ten or twelve attacks, the campaigns would eventually slow down 

Flynn states that after around ten, eleven or twelve attacks on the same address, the removals generally stop or slow down significantly. However, she does not claim to know the exact reason.  

Two explanations have been put forward: Google may eventually stop handling new complaints in the same way after having restored the same page several times, or the attacker may simply conclude that their target is able to recover systematically and decide to choose another one.  

She advises against, however, immediately redirecting an attacked page to a new address. If the attacker detects this redirection, they may simply target the new page, which restarts the cycle.  

For online casinos, as for affiliate sites, the battle is therefore no longer fought solely on the quality of content or its ranking in search results. It also hinges on the ability to detect when a profitable page has disappeared, to identify the reason for its disappearance, and to act before a few hours turn into several weeks.