Review Moderation Policy

Takes effect when the beta ends · Version v0.6

This policy is published ahead of time so you can read it now. It takes effect on the day the Octicase beta ends.

How Octicase moderates reviews of sellers on the Platform. The Directory carries no reviews.

1. What this covers

Every review of an expert, consultant, vendor or partner who sells through the Platform. It applies identically to every one of them, whatever the subscription tier and whatever they pay us. It does not apply to the Directory: Octicase does not accept, publish or moderate reviews, ratings or star scores of the attorneys and law firms listed there, and there is nothing to moderate because nothing is collected. Nor does it apply to unclaimed pre-loaded listings of any kind.

2. What we do not do

We do not remove, suppress, reorder, hide, delay or downrank a review because it is unfavorable. We do not remove one because the professional asks, complains, threatens litigation, or stops paying us. A customer's subscription status, spend or partner relationship has no effect on which reviews appear or in what order. We do not compute, display or publish an aggregate rating, an average score, a star rating or a ranking. We do not write, commission, solicit, buy or sell reviews, and we do not offer anything of value in exchange for one or condition any incentive on what it says. We do not use a review, or its absence, to decide where a professional appears in search results.

3. The only reasons a review comes down

A review is removed only where it falls within one of the following, or where Section 9 requires it, and for no other reason: (a) it is fabricated, or describes an experience the reviewer did not have, or concerns a professional the reviewer never dealt with; (b) it was generated by software and presented as the genuine experience of a person; (c) the reviewer has a material connection to the professional, including an owner, employee, family member or anyone receiving consideration, and did not disclose it in the review itself; (d) it was bought, sold or given in exchange for anything of value; (e) it contains the name, contact details, medical information or other personal information of someone who is not the reviewer, or material subject to a protective order or a confidentiality obligation; (f) it contains a threat, an incitement to violence, or content unlawful on its face; (g) it infringes intellectual property, following a valid notice; (h) it duplicates a review the same person already published about the same engagement; (i) it concerns a person or business that is not the subject of the listing.
A review does not come down because it is negative, because it is unfair, because the professional disputes the facts, because it describes an outcome the professional considers unrepresentative, or because it is embarrassing.

3A. Testimonials about Octicase, and what we never buy

This policy also governs every testimonial, case study or quotation about Octicase that Octicase itself publishes. We do not publish one the person did not give, we do not pay for one, and where the person is an officer, an employee, or the immediate relative of one, we say so clearly and next to it. We do not ask an employee or a relative for a review or a testimonial without telling them to disclose the connection.
We do not buy, sell or procure fake followers, views, subscribers or other indicators of social media influence, for ourselves or for any listing, and a professional who does so, or who presents such indicators as genuine, loses the listing. This is what 16 C.F.R. Section 465.7 prohibits.
We publish reviews of sellers who pay us a platform fee, and we say so rather than presenting the Services as an independent review site. This is what 16 C.F.R. Section 465.5 addresses. The Directory carries no reviews at all, so the question does not arise there.
Every review that is not removed under Section 3 is displayed, and the reviews shown on a listing are all the reviews we have received about it. We do not screen who is invited to review by how favorable they are likely to be, and a professional who does so loses the right to invite reviews. A professional may not ask a client or a firm to agree not to review it. Where such a term appears in a form contract imposed on an individual, it is void under the Consumer Review Fairness Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 45b; wherever else it appears, it breaches this policy and the professional loses the right to invite reviews.

4. Correcting a factual error

A professional who believes a review states a fact that is demonstrably wrong may use the error-reporting route on the listing. That route corrects factual inaccuracies. It does not remove unfavorable opinion, and we do not treat an opinion we disagree with as a factual error. Where a correction is made the review stays published, the correction is shown with it, and the reviewer is told. Where we decline, we say why.

5. The right of reply

A professional may publish one reply to each review, shown with it and identified as the professional's response. A reply may not disclose the reviewer's identity beyond what the reviewer disclosed, and may not disclose confidential, privileged or medical information about anyone. A reply that does is removed under Section 3(e), and repeated breaches end the right of reply for that professional.

6. How a decision is made and recorded

Where automated screening for the categories in Section 3 is in place, it only flags a review for a person to look at: it never holds back or delays publication and never removes anything by itself. Every removal is decided by a person before it takes effect. Each moderation action is recorded with the review, the date, the provision of Section 3 relied on or, under Section 3(j), the order itself, the reason in words, and who decided it. Those records are kept for six years, aligned with our audit logs and with the row our Data Retention and Deletion Policy carries for them, and are produced to a regulator on request. Once a year we publish how many reviews were submitted, how many were removed, and the breakdown by provision.

7. Telling the people affected

When a review is removed we tell the reviewer, name the provision that applied, explain why, and say how to appeal. We tell the professional that a review was removed and under which provision, without disclosing anything about the reviewer beyond what the review itself showed.

8. Appeal

A reviewer whose review was removed, and a professional whose error report or reply was declined, may appeal once by writing to support@octicase.com within thirty days of the notice under Section 7 or, for a professional, of the decision declining the error report or the reply. A person who did not make the original decision answers within ten business days, and the outcome and its reason are recorded and sent. Where an appeal succeeds the review returns to its original position in the order of display.

9. Legal demands

A demand to remove a review, from a professional, from a lawyer acting for one, or from anyone else, is assessed under this policy alone. We do not remove a review because someone asserts without foundation that it is defamatory. Where a court of competent jurisdiction orders removal we comply and record the order as the reason. We tell the reviewer before we act, where the law allows.

10. Changes

We post a material change to this policy before it takes effect and keep prior versions available. A change never applies backwards to a moderation decision already made.

11. Contact

Questions about a moderation decision go to support@octicase.com. Questions about this policy go to legal@octicase.com.

Version v0.6 · Published September 15, 2026