Digital footprint removal & protection
Your data, off the market.
Data-broker sites publish your home address, phone numbers, and family names — and sell that page to anyone who searches you. In twenty states, the law now requires them to delete it on request. We do the filing.
The problem
What people find when they search your name.
Before a meeting, a transaction, an introduction — people search your name. Too often, what they find first isn't your work. It's a data-broker page: your home address, your phone numbers, decades of address history, the names of your family members — assembled without your consent and sold for a few dollars.
You've spent years building a name. These sites have spent years monetizing it.
The law has caught up
Twenty states now give you the right to deletion.
Twenty U.S. states have comprehensive privacy laws in effect — California, Texas, and New Jersey among them — giving residents the legal right to require data brokers to delete their personal information, most with a fixed response clock, typically 45 days.
Exercising that right is tedious by design: identifying the statute, citing it, filing with each broker, tracking deadlines, re-filing when records reappear.
It is exactly the kind of work most people never finish. It is the only work we do.
How it works
Four steps, handled end to end.
Select any step to see what it involves.
A sweep is not a single search. Your identity fragments across brokers — middle names, former surnames, misspellings, an age that is off by four years, a phone you gave someone in 2009 — and each fragment can carry its own record. We check the major people-search and data-broker sites by hand as well as by tooling, because a meaningful number of them cannot be checked any other way: they block automated access outright, sit behind an interactive search, or publish nothing to the index while still holding a file on you. Every listing we find is captured — URL, screenshot, and the specific fields exposed — before anything is filed. That record is what the rest of the process is built on.
Blocked to automation
Spokeo, Intelius, TruePeopleSearch, FastPeopleSearch, MyLife, ThatsThem, and Clustrmaps all refuse automated checks, and which sites block varies over time. Each is verified manually.
Duplicate and merged records
One site held two separate records for the same person, the second having absorbed another individual's aliases. Removing one would have left the other publishing.
What gets captured
Address history, phone numbers, partial email addresses, employment history, and the names of relatives and associates — recorded field by field.
Evidence first
Screenshots and URLs are archived before a single request goes out, so what was published is documented even after it comes down.
Every broker is approached on its own terms, and those terms differ more than you would expect. Some accept a web form; some require an emailed request; some demand identity verification before they will read it at all. Where a statute applies, the request cites it by section rather than relying on a generic opt-out — a citation the broker's own compliance team recognizes, and one that leaves a paper trail if the request is ignored. Where no statute reaches, we use the strongest mechanism the site offers. Requests ask for deletion and suppression of republication, not de-indexing, because a de-indexed record is still a record.
Statute-cited, not a form blast
Requests cite the operative provision — for a New Jersey resident, the Data Privacy Act at N.J.S.A. 56:8-166.4 et seq., with the response period at § 56:8-166.7.
Verification regimes differ
One site places an automated phone call and reads a code aloud that must be entered on screen. Others send a confirmation link that must be clicked before the request exists at all.
Supplier chains
Some sites publish another broker's data under their own name. Filing against the visible site alone leaves the supplier free to republish, so the request goes upstream.
Deletion, not de-indexing
Every request asks for removal of cached and archived copies and suppression of re-creation from future data ingestion.
This is the step self-filed removals rarely reach. A submitted request is not a live request: unclicked confirmation links leave it dormant, and nothing tells you. We log each filing against its own date, confirm it actually became active, and follow the response period per request rather than per client. Where a statute sets a clock, we know when it closes, and whether the broker either responded or properly claimed the extension the law allows. A broker that did neither is out of compliance, and the file records exactly that — which is what gives a second filing, or a complaint to a regulator, something to stand on.
Dormant requests
In one file, six confirmation links sat unopened in an inbox. Six requests that appeared to have been filed, and that no broker had any reason to act on.
Per-request deadline ledger
Each filing carries its own clock. Deadlines are tracked individually, not as one date for the whole engagement.
Extensions tracked separately from silence
The statute permits one extension with timely notice and an explanation. A broker that gives that notice is doing what the statute contemplates. A broker that simply goes quiet is not, and the file distinguishes the two.
Escalation path
Repeat non-response is escalated in writing, and where a state agency enforces the statute — in New Jersey, the Division of Consumer Affairs — the file is already documented for a complaint.
Removal is not permanent, and any service telling you otherwise is describing something that does not happen. Brokers re-acquire data continuously from public records, marketing lists, and each other, so a name that was clear in March reappears in June through a supplier you never filed against. Protection is a standing re-sweep of the same site list, on the same schedule, with the same capture-and-file process — and the re-filing is the point. A record that comes back gets a fresh request citing the original one, which puts a re-filing on firmer ground than a first request.
Why it comes back
Brokers ingest from public records, marketing data, and one another. Suppression at one site does not bind its suppliers.
Standing re-sweep
The same site list is rechecked on a fixed cycle, with the sites that block automation checked by hand each time.
Repeat filing carries more weight
A second request that references a prior deletion is not a routine first-time opt-out, and is not handled like one.
You see the ledger
Each cycle produces a status report: what is clear, what returned, what was re-filed, and what is past its deadline.
No software to install. No account to manage. A clear report of what was found, what was removed, and what we're watching.
Case study — engagement in progress
A real removal, step by step.
This describes our own file, documented with permission. It is not legal advice.
We don't publish client records. The engagement below is our founder's own — a New Jersey resident — with the exposed values themselves redacted. It is live, not finished: the initial 45-day statutory response period has closed. This is what the work actually looks like.
15
sites swept
9
publishing records
45
day statutory clock, tracked per request
Day 0
Fifteen sites checked, by hand and by machine
We swept fifteen data-broker and people-search sites. Nine were publishing records; one was already clear; five block automated checking entirely and had to be verified manually. Radaris held two separate records — the second a merged duplicate that had absorbed another person's aliases into his identity, so the listing described two different people as one.
Day 0
The statute the requests cited
The requests were filed under the New Jersey Data Privacy Act, N.J.S.A. 56:8-166.4 et seq., effective January 2025, which provides a right to deletion and a right to opt out of the sale of personal data, and sets a 45-day response period under § 56:8-166.7. Every letter we filed cites it by section. Generic opt-out forms cite nothing, which is why they are so easy to ignore.
Day 0
Filing, site by site
Whitepages was suppressed the same day, which required answering an automated verification call and entering a spoken code. Four separate requests went to Radaris — one per record, plus the duplicates. Opt-outs went to Spokeo and ContactOut. A do-not-sell request went to BeenVerified, which operates on a sixteen-business-day window of its own. Each listing was screenshotted before filing, so there is evidence of what was published.
Day 0
Following the data upstream
The YellowBook listing turned out to be white-labeled BeenVerified data. Filing directly with YellowBook would have treated a symptom; the upstream request at BeenVerified is what actually clears it. Knowing which brokers resell whose data is most of the difference between a sweep that holds and one that quietly refills.
Day 6
Re-sweep, and the confirmation links nobody sees
An automated re-check of all fifteen sites confirmed the Whitepages suppression was holding and Radaris, YellowBook, and ContactOut were still live. It also surfaced the real blocker: six confirmation links sitting unopened in his inbox. Radaris, Spokeo, and ContactOut requests do nothing at all until the requester clicks a verification link — the request can sit unverified indefinitely, and nothing tells you.
Day 6
The backup pack
Statute-cited escalation emails were drafted and staged for Radaris, YellowBook, ContactOut, and OfficialUSA, along with pre-filled values for the PeekYou form, which is CAPTCHA-gated and has to be submitted by a person. Nothing is sent early — the letters wait until the primary requests have had their window.
Day 45
The initial response period closes
September 4 is day 45 for every request filed on July 21, and each one is logged against its own date. By that point a broker must either respond or, within the initial period, notify the consumer that it is taking the single 45-day extension the statute allows where reasonably necessary — with an explanation of why. A broker that does neither is out of compliance, and the file records exactly that.
Day 47
Escalation, if it comes to that
Any site still publishing after a verified request and a closed response period with no reply and no noticed extension gets a second filing and an ignored-request counter. Two ignored requests, and the file becomes a complaint to the New Jersey Division of Consumer Affairs, which enforces the Act, and to the FTC. Each second filing carries the original evidence archive with it.
Nine sites, fifteen checked, one statute, forty-five days, one file that stays open. Multiply that by every broker that lists you — that is the chore this service exists to absorb.
About this case
Pricing
Plainly priced, plainly stated.
Exposure review
Complimentary
A consented scan of the major data-broker and people-search sites, delivered as a plain-English report of exactly what's listed about you.
Request your reviewRemoval
$399 one-time
The full sweep: signed authorization, statute-cited deletion requests to every broker listing you, deadline tracking, escalation, and a completion report with evidence archive.
Start with a reviewProtection
$24 /mo · $249/yr
Ongoing monitoring: regular re-scans, automatic re-filing when data reappears, and a quarterly status report.
Request your reviewHouseholds and executive/family engagements available — ask in your review request.
Why Delisted
The difference is in the follow-through.
Statute-cited requests
Each filing names the law that applies to you, rather than relying on a generic opt-out form.
Deadlines tracked and enforced
Every response clock is logged and escalated when it lapses. Nothing is filed and forgotten.
A named human accountable to you
You work with one person who knows your file — not a ticket queue.
Exposure review
Start with the facts.
Tell us who to look for and we'll prepare a complimentary exposure review — a plain-English summary of what is publicly listed about you and where. No obligation, and no alarmism.
Questions