izoologic.com Arvostelua 4

I was contacted regarding an alleged affiliation issue, and the situation was handled in a very unprofessional way. Instead of using proper business communication, I was approached through personal channels like Facebook and WhatsApp, which felt intrusive and harassing.
Although I took immediate action to resolve the matter, the aggressive approach left a very negative impression. Professional issues should be handled professionally — this experience was far from that.

This is a bad faith actor, unfortunately common in the takedown or brand protection industry.

They send takedown letters prematurely and without sufficient legal basis. They often include false claims and faulty logic when stating the case for a takedown.

For example, paraphrasing, "We attempted to reach out to the website operator, but were unable to reach them. Therefore we are assuming that the webpage is fraudulent in nature."

Or, an example from another false positive case, they will describe, in great detail, the operation of a phishing scheme. The scheme will be described as if it is established fact, including descriptions of victim interactions with fraud actors. In reality, none of the described activities have actually occurred, and the iZOOlogic analyst is dishonestly describing a speculative scenario as if it were fact.

Their agents are *very* persistent, and will push back repeatedly against a takedown refusal, despite obvious deficiencies in their takedown letters. I am concerned that an ISP respondent who is less experienced in evaluating the validity of takedown letters will be intimidated into compliance with an illegitimate takedown demand from this company.

Strangely enough, some of their attempted takedowns *would* be slam dunk successful takedowns, if they would only submit them in the formal DMCA takedown format. But for some reason they seem reluctant to send formal takedown letters following industry standard legal conventions such as DMCA, opting instead to send weird informal takedown "requests," wherein they sometimes admit that they have not fully researched or verified a potential infringement, and request that the ISP verify licensing clearance with the website operator (something which does not fall within the ISP's role or responsibilities in industry standard takedown practices).

All in all, the company displays a repeat pattern of improper conduct, and their takedown success rate is low in the cases I've handled. If you are considering their brand protection services, look elsewhere. If you have received a takedown letter from them, treat it with extreme skepticism.

Have a look at their Companies House records!

Incompetent and acting in bad faith.
They send fake automated and unverified complaints about copyright "infringements" to the web hosts and the hosts that don't know any better would disable your site because of this.