Legal notices

Ghostedcheck hosts user-generated reports about hiring processes. It does not write those reports, does not verify them, and does not take sides in a dispute about whether they are fair. These notices describe how the product is designed. They are not legal advice, and they are not a promise that nobody will sue.

Anyone can file a lawsuit. Terms, automated screens, a recurrence hold, and Section 230 reduce risk. They cannot prevent a filing, a demand letter, or a bad day in court. Filers remain solely responsible for their words. The operator remains a host of third-party speech, not the speaker.

Recurrence hold

A filing is not published when it is received. An automated, content-neutral rule holds it until independent first-hand accounts of the same hiring pattern at the same company are filed from distinct connections. The number required is computed from the ledger: it starts at three, can rise if that cluster, that pattern, or the ledger as a whole is being flagged or hidden, and can fall once the pattern is already on the public ledger. That is a self-tuning recurrence threshold, not an investigation, not staff approval, and not a finding that any story is true. Ghostedcheck does not interview reporters, does not confirm that anyone applied, and does not adopt a released report as its own speech. See how the hold works.

Not a consumer report

Ghostedcheck is not a consumer reporting agency. The ledger is not a consumer report under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., or similar state laws. Do not use this site to make employment, credit, insurance, or tenant decisions about any individual. Reports are about companies and job postings, not about named people — and they are still unverified opinions. Using the ledger as a background check of a person is a prohibited use under the terms.

Section 230

Ghostedcheck is designed as a provider of an interactive computer service that hosts information provided by another information content provider, as those terms are used in 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1). Ghostedcheck is not the publisher or speaker of user reports. Automated name and contact screens, the self-tuning recurrence hold, community flags, and hiding of guideline-breaking reports are good-faith restriction of objectionable material under 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(2). Holding or hiding a report is an integrity step, not an adoption of remaining reports as Ghostedcheck’s own speech. Section 230 is a defense available in U.S. court. It is not a global immunity and not a warranty.

Defamation

Ghostedcheck does not adjudicate whether a hiring story is true. Harsh opinions about a process stay up if they follow the guidelines. Automated screens reject names of people, contact details, threats, hate, and accusations of crime against a person — because those are how individuals get hurt and how platforms get dragged into fights they did not start.

That does not make a report lawsuit-proof. A company can still claim that a false statement of fact about the company is defamatory. A filer who writes a false factual claim owns that risk. Ghostedcheck does not indemnify filers. Filers indemnify the operator. Write what you experienced. Do not invent headcount, do not accuse a crime, and do not guess at motives you did not observe. This is not legal advice. If you need advice, hire a lawyer licensed where you live.

User-generated content

Reports are submitted by visitors. Automated filters reject certain prohibited text. An automated, self-tuning recurrence hold keeps a filing off the public ledger until independent accounts of the same pattern exist. Community members may flag public reports. Ghostedcheck does not warrant accuracy, completeness, or the identity of any reporter. There are no accounts, so Ghostedcheck cannot “un-publish” a report at a filer’s later request by looking up who they are.

Court orders, DMCA, and company demands

If you have a court order directing removal of a specific report, a copyright notice, or a formal demand, do not paste personal data about a reporter into a community flag — flags store only a reason code. Use the copyable package on Legal request package. This application does not operate a monitored legal-intake mailbox and does not store legal-notice PII in the ledger. A production operator must publish a dedicated address before treating that page as a statutory notice channel.

If you represent a company

Ghostedcheck does not currently offer a claimed profile, a verified reply, or a paid takedown. You may flag reports that name individuals, leak confidential data, copy someone else’s work, or are about the wrong entity. You may not flood the ledger with counter-reports. Formal removal of a specific report requires a complete package on the Notice page. Harsh opinions about a hiring process that follow the guidelines stay up. Company names appear because reporters identify the employer they say they applied to (nominative fair use), not because Ghostedcheck is affiliated with that employer.

Copyright

If you are the copyright owner of material copied into a report, the Notice page lists the elements of a notification under 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(3). Ghostedcheck may hide the report. Repeat infringement may be blocked at the connection-hash layer. A production operator must designate an agent with the U.S. Copyright Office before treating this site as a 512(c) safe-harbor channel. Until an agent is designated and an address is published, this page describes the information needed; it is not a claim that a registered agent already exists.

Anonymity and legal process

There are no accounts. Ghostedcheck does not ask who you are. A reporter who puts identifying detail in a report has published it themselves. Hashed connection metadata used for rate limits is not a directory of users and is not a legal identity. Formal legal process served on a host is the only path that could compel production of server logs a host actually holds. Ghostedcheck cannot identify a filer from a “please delete my report” message, because it does not store a name or email with the report.

Anti-SLAPP and other defenses

Some jurisdictions, including Texas (the Texas Citizens Participation Act), provide procedures that can dismiss certain claims arising from the exercise of free speech. Ghostedcheck does not promise that any such statute will apply to a given dispute, that a court will grant a motion, or that a filer will recover fees. Those are facts for a lawyer and a court, not for this page.

Related

Legal request package · How the hold works · Terms of use · Privacy policy · Community guidelines