A patient disputes a bill and writes it up as clinical harm. You cannot answer without breaching their confidentiality, so the review stands unanswered. The way out is not a reply. It is platform policy.
It can be challenged where the review violates the platform’s policy: the reviewer was never a patient, it carries a demand, or it describes another practice. Erase Trax takes it on with that alone and never asks for patient records, so confidentiality is not breached. A real patient’s genuine complaint stays up. The platform decides; only verified removals are invoiced.
A disputed invoice becomes a review about the treatment.
A real patient describing real pain stays; a review with a demand, about another practice, or from someone never seen can come down, and the audit says which.
Charged me for work I never agreed to and now the tooth hurts worse than before.
You cannot answer either part in public without discussing a patient.
We never ask for a patient record, and nothing confidential is ever shared.
A few yes-or-no answers from you are all that is needed.
Who wrote it?
A relative reviewing for a patient is treated differently by each platform, so we check its policy.
A dismissed staff member is a conflict of interest, a similar-named practice is a wrong-business case, and a clinician’s home address is a breach everywhere.
Searched: Dr. Hale dentist
A real patient’s real complaint stays, and the reply confirms nothing and offers a private route.
A forum thread or page ranking for a clinician’s name needs a different route, not removal: the audit tells you which you have.
Examples and names are illustrative. The platform makes every final decision.
Every review read against the platform’s policy. For each one we ask you a single question that discloses nothing, was this person ever a patient, and the verdict comes back in writing, including what stays.
Every policy-violating review is handled for you. No record, no chart, no treatment detail leaves the practice.
You see where each one stands. The platform makes the final decision.
Only for removals verified on your live profile.
We take it on without it. Nothing about the chart is needed. Where the reviewer was never a patient, or the review carries a demand, or it describes another practice, that can be shown without a word about anyone’s care. Where the reviewer is a real patient with a real grievance, the review stays, and we tell you that at the audit rather than taking on something that cannot succeed.
No, and we would not accept it. The only thing we ask of you is a yes or no: was a person of this name ever seen here. That answer is your confirmation, nothing more.
Yes, carefully. The usual approach is a reply that neither confirms nor denies the person was a patient and offers a private way to raise the concern. Your regulator’s guidance on public responses applies and we do not replace it. What we can say is that a reply that argues the clinical facts is the one thing that makes a bad review worse.
It depends on the platform. Some treat a review by someone who was not themselves the customer as a breach; others allow a relative to describe an experience they were part of. We check the policy on the platform the review sits on, and take a case on only where it applies.
That rarely comes down. Asking the forum to take it down is usually a dead end. The route there is building and ranking pages you own, which is slow, separate work, and the audit will tell you whether that is what you need instead of, or as well as, removal.
Free audit, a written verdict, nothing to pay upfront.
Erase Trax assistant
Answers from this website
Ask about review removal, what it costs, how long it takes, or the industries we work with. Everything I say comes from this website — if it is not covered here, I will say so.
Common questions
Automated AI assistant; messages are processed by a third-party AI provider (see our privacy policy). Do not share sensitive details. For anything specific, email info@erasetrax.com — we reply within 24 hours.