Independence Policy

Whether we investigate, publish, update, correct or keep reporting on a matter is decided by our evidence, editorial and legal standards.

Money, professional standing, personal influence, commercial importance or threats to take business elsewhere never decide an editorial outcome.

The same standard applies to everyone — an individual, a private or public company, a government official, an institution or any other organisation.

We never accept money, gifts, services, favours or anything else in exchange for:

• Removing a record
• Hiding evidence
• Delaying publication
• Concealing an important source
• Changing an evidence grade without evidence
• Removing an accurate adverse finding
• Softening accurate reporting
• Stopping an investigation
• Publishing a favourable conclusion

Nobody who works for or represents USA Scammers — staff, writers, investigators, lawyers or contractors — is allowed to negotiate any such deal.

Anyone can challenge a record without paying us anything.

If reliable evidence shows a material statement is wrong, incomplete or out of date, we may correct, clarify or update it under our Corrections Policy.

Members get no priority. Non-members are not refused a legitimate correction.

We may charge for Research Membership, professional research tools, access to the Scanner and related services. Those fees pay for the services the member receives.

Membership gives no right to:

• remove a record;
• control an investigation;
• approve what we write;
• change an evidence grade;
• stop publication;
• demand favourable coverage; or
• get a correction the evidence doesn’t support.

Members can send documents or ask us to review a record. Those materials are judged by exactly the same standards as anyone else’s.

If membership includes legal research or professional support, that service is kept separate from our independent editorial decisions.

A legal professional may help a member understand a record, organise supporting documents, find relevant paperwork or present a documented correction request.

That help doesn’t mean we will accept the member’s position or change what we published.

If USA Scammers or a related service has a financial or professional relationship with someone named in a record, that relationship cannot shape what the record says.

Material conflicts are identified, disclosed internally and managed.

Where needed, anyone involved in a conflicting business or professional relationship is taken off editorial decisions about that matter.

A source, whistleblower, complainant, litigant or anyone else who sends us information doesn’t own the investigation that follows. Nobody who gives us information can make us:

• adopt their version of events;
• leave out important contrary evidence;
• call allegations findings;
• go after another person;
• ignore a subject’s response; or
• decide when or how we publish.

We assess the evidence ourselves.

Funders, sponsors, members, donors, suppliers and business partners get no say over individual investigations or conclusions because of the money involved.

If a financial relationship creates a material conflict over a particular record, we consider disclosure, recusal or other safeguards.

People working on research, investigations, legal review or editorial decisions must not ask for or accept gifts, benefits, hospitality or favours that could reasonably compromise — or appear to compromise — their independence on a matter.

Any attempt to sway reporting through personal benefits is reported internally.

Our people must not ask for, agree to or accept any improper financial or other advantage in return for using their editorial or investigative role in a particular way.

Where the circumstances call for it, suspected bribery or improper influence may be documented, escalated internally and referred to legal counsel or the proper authorities.

Depending on where and how it happens, relevant anti-bribery law can include relevant U.S. federal and state anti-bribery laws and the UK Bribery Act 2010.

This policy does not say that every offer, negotiation or removal request is bribery.

We may receive demands, lawyers’ letters, commercial pressure, threats of legal action or other objections to our reporting.

Every genuine legal or factual challenge is considered on its merits. Pressure on its own is no reason to take reporting down — or to keep it up.

If a challenge exposes a real error, we correct it. If the evidence still supports the reporting, pressure doesn’t change the evidence.

We don’t treat a legal demand as proof of inaccuracy. Nor do we ignore one just because it comes from a subject or their lawyer.

Legal notices, court orders and other formal demands are assessed on their substance, the applicable law, the evidence and our legal obligations.

Binding orders from courts and competent authorities are handled as the law requires.

Writers, investigators, editors, legal reviewers and others must declare any interest that could reasonably affect their independence on a matter, such as:

Depending on the case, safeguards can include stepping aside, reassignment, independent review or disclosure.

See the conflict register

Where practical, people who handle memberships, subscriptions, partnerships or other commercial work don’t control editorial decisions about records involving those relationships.

Commercial staff can pass factual requests or evidence from a member or subject to the editorial team. They can never promise:

Nobody representing USA Scammers has authority to make promises like these.

We may consider a request to remove, correct or amend a record when it raises legitimate grounds, such as:

Who is asking — their identity, wealth, status or membership — makes no difference to the standard we apply.

Where appropriate, significant corrections or amendments are shown through an update notice or the version history.

We will not quietly change a material factual conclusion to satisfy private pressure.

Small spelling, formatting or other non-substantive edits don’t necessarily get the same treatment.

Any suspected attempt by our people to sell, trade or improperly influence an editorial outcome should be reported internally and will be investigated. Depending on what is found, consequences can include:

The response will be proportionate to the facts.