What does this mean? Not following.GSC notifications are starting to arrive one month and a week after takedowns. One page received a notification on the same day as its takedown, but that was the exception.
Filling in the counter-notice form linked in the notification email (a different form with a selectable URL rather than an input field) no longer defaults to "We have already responded to, or are in the process of responding to, your request to restore the following URLs". Instead, the reply email states that the content will be restored shortly.
Good luck to everyone fighting these.
If the same page is taken down multiple times, the system will sometimes stop working properly and treat your counter-notice as a duplicate, meaning it will not be processed. This has been a known issue, reported on Google Community forums, since at least 2024.What does this mean? Not following.
like if they will not get anything, why they do that? and who stands behind it?
Methodology: The attacker sets up sites impersonating the casino, with a different one for each geo. (Like geo-casino). After that, it automatically targets pages with specific branded keywords with DMCA takedowns. I have seen examples where 50 out of 70 results were taken down, with the attacker's site dominating the remaining results. In some cases, the said site redirects directly to the casino.
@JTK do you still have URLs stuck in the already replied loop or did you resolve this for all your pages?
What a nightmare. I got hundreds of DCMAs to one URL within 24 hours in May and it's still not resolved. The Lumen ID does not match a GSC message, but I managed to get a reply stating that the appeal had worked yesterday from a new email account (the original was stuck in the loop), but it's still not indexed the following day and still showing the same Lumen link in the site search.It's a mixed bag. Some sites seem to be somewhat immune, others are still affected. Complaints have slowed down for last month on my end.
Bad actors are now also sending takedown notices citing one of my site as the "original source". Still a mess.