Review steps
The path a submission follows:
- Submitted: your case enters the queue. Drafts never reach moderation.
- Under review: a moderator takes the case and checks the account, the evidence and any personal-data risk.
- Decision: published, more information requested, or not published. If more information is requested you can update and resubmit.
- After publication: brand replies, your replies and the resolution record are added to the timeline. New corrections are reviewed separately.
Decision records
For every moderation decision we record who decided, when, the reason code, the explanation shown to you and the content version decided on. Moderators' internal notes are kept separately and never go to the public, the brand or exports.
Administrative actions are written to an audit log. A sponsor's payment status is never an input to any decision.
How evidence is handled
Documents you upload are kept by default in a private area only moderators can see. Sharing with the brand happens only with your explicit choice. If a public copy is needed, a separate copy with personal details masked is prepared; the original is never made public.
Abuse and duplicates
Bursts of submissions, reuse of the same document or near-identical texts are review signals; on their own they are not proof of wrongdoing and never trigger automatic penalties. Duplicates are not merged blindly; each user's event, documents and preferences stay separate.
Urgent privacy cases
If personal data was published by mistake, moderators can pause publication first, then review with a recorded reason and notify you.
Comment moderation
Signed-in users can comment on published complaints. First comments from new accounts and comments containing links are reviewed before they appear; trusted accounts are moderated after publication with a “report” flow. Links in comments are not endorsed to search engines (ugc/nofollow).