DisputeVoice | Publishing Standards

Editorial Standards & Methodology

Adopted at launch | Last reviewed: February 2026 | Maintained by the DisputeVoice Editorial Team

DisputeVoice is an independent consumer protection publishing platform. We publish evidence-based Lighthouse Reports documenting consumer disputes with contractors and home improvement businesses, and a library of consumer protection resources for homeowners. This page describes the standards, processes, and principles that govern everything we publish.

We publish these standards publicly because transparency is the foundation of credibility. Subjects of our reports, consumers considering filing a report, journalists researching our work, and members of the public are all entitled to know exactly how we operate.

Our Mission

DisputeVoice exists to give consumers a credible, permanent, searchable voice in disputes with contractors and home improvement businesses — and to publish consumer protection information that helps homeowners avoid harm before it happens.

We are not a law firm. We do not provide legal representation or legal advice. We are not a review site driven by advertiser relationships. We are a publishing platform with an editorial process, accountable to the public record.

DisputeVoice was founded by Steven Chayer, a Seattle-area homeowner and SEO professional who suffered a significant six-figure financial loss through what he believes was a deceptive business arrangement. That experience — and the realization that the legal system is inaccessible to most consumers with legitimate grievances — is what drove him to build a platform that uses the power of search visibility and documented public record to create accountability where the legal system cannot.

What We Publish

DisputeVoice publishes two categories of content:

Lighthouse Report Submission Standards

Not every submission becomes a published Lighthouse Report. Every submission is reviewed against the following standards before we agree to publish.

Evidence Requirements

A publishable Lighthouse Report must be supported by credible documentary evidence. We do not publish reports based solely on oral accounts without supporting documentation. Acceptable evidence includes any combination of the following:

• Signed contracts, estimates, or proposals
• Invoices, receipts, or payment confirmation records
• Bank statements, credit card statements, canceled checks, or electronic payment records (Zelle, Venmo, PayPal, CashApp)
• Text message threads, email correspondence, or voicemail records
• Photographs or video documentation of work performed or damage
• Third-party inspection reports, building department records, or permit documentation
• Regulatory filings, BBB complaints, or attorney general complaint confirmations
• Court filings, judgments, or official correspondence

Submitters do not need all of the above. A strong submission typically includes payment evidence, some form of communication record, and documentation of the outcome (or failure to perform). We will tell submitters if their evidence is insufficient and what additional documentation would be needed to proceed.

Identity Verification

We verify the identity of every submitter before publishing their report. Submitters may publish under their full name, initials, or a pseudonym (for example, "Consumer A") — but we must verify their identity privately before publication. Anonymous tips with no identity verification are not accepted.

We do not share submitter identity information with subjects, third parties, or any external parties except as required by law.

Subject Verification

Before publishing a report, we verify that the named subject is an identifiable, locatable business or individual operating in the described capacity. We confirm business registration status where records are publicly available. We do not publish reports against subjects we cannot independently verify exist.

What We Will Not Publish

The following content will not be accepted or published under any circumstances:

• Claims without supporting evidence, or where the evidence provided does not credibly support the claims made
• Personal attacks, insults, threats, or harassment directed at subjects or third parties
• Expert-level accusations we cannot responsibly substantiate — including medical diagnoses, legal conclusions, or criminal characterizations unsupported by official findings
• Private personal data including Social Security numbers, financial account numbers, home addresses of private individuals, or private medical information
• Doxxing content or any content intended to expose private individuals to physical danger or targeted harassment
• Copyrighted material the submitter does not own or have permission to reproduce
• Content that reads as defamation rather than documented consumer experience — including fabricated facts, reckless disregard for truth, or malicious content unsupported by evidence
• Reports the submitter cannot honestly attest to as their first-hand experience or clearly sourced documentation
• Content submitted on behalf of competitors of the named subject, or submissions that appear motivated by competitive rather than consumer harm

The Right-of-Reply Process

Before publishing any Lighthouse Report, we contact the named subject and provide them a reasonable opportunity to respond. This is not a legal requirement — it is an editorial one. We believe a fair public record includes the subject's perspective where they choose to provide one.

Our standard right-of-reply process works as follows:

1. After a report is approved for publication, we contact the subject by the best available means — email, business contact form, physical address, or phone — and inform them that a consumer report is pending publication concerning a specific transaction.
2. We provide a 72-hour window for the subject to submit a response. This window may be extended at editorial discretion in cases involving complex factual disputes.
3. If the subject provides a factual, evidence-supported response, we review it and may publish it alongside the report, clearly labeled as the subject's response.
4. If the subject's response is primarily threats, legal demands, or harassment rather than factual rebuttal, we note receipt of the response and proceed with publication based on verifiable facts.
5. If the subject does not respond within the allotted window, we note this in the published report and proceed.

Language and Characterization Standards

The language used in Lighthouse Reports is held to specific editorial standards designed to ensure accuracy and defensibility.

We describe what happened, not what it means legally. We do not label subjects as "fraudsters," "criminals," or "scammers" unless those characterizations are supported by official findings — a court judgment, a regulatory finding, a criminal conviction. We describe documented facts: payments made, work not completed, communications ignored, evidence presented.

We use attribution. Claims in Lighthouse Reports are attributed to the submitting consumer and identified as such. We distinguish between what the consumer states, what documentation shows, and what the subject has said in response.

We do not amplify inflammatory language. If a submitter's original account contains language that is inflammatory, threatening, or legally characterizing without evidentiary support, our editorial process rewrites that language to factual description before publication. The substance of the complaint is preserved; the inflammatory framing is not.

Corrections and Updates Policy

We take accuracy seriously. Published reports are not static — they are living records that are updated as facts change.

Requesting a Correction

If you believe a published report contains a material factual error, contact us with the following:

• The URL of the report in question
• The specific statement you believe is inaccurate
• What you believe the accurate information to be
• Supporting documentation, if available

We review all correction requests. If we confirm a material error, we correct it promptly and note the correction date. We do not silently alter published content — all material corrections are documented with a visible notation.

Status Updates

Reports are updated to reflect material changes in status. Common updates include:

• Resolved / Settled — When the consumer confirms the dispute has been resolved, we add a prominent dated banner to the report reflecting this outcome. The report remains published as a historical record.
• Work Completed — When a contractor completes previously incomplete work to the consumer's satisfaction, we note this.
• Judgment Entered — When a court issues a judgment relevant to the dispute, we document it.
• Under Review — If new information causes us to question the accuracy of a published report, we may label it "Under Review" while we investigate.

Retraction Policy

We generally prefer updates over deletion. Full retraction — removal of a published report — is reserved for narrow circumstances:

• Verified material errors that render the report fundamentally inaccurate and uncorrectable through update
• A credible privacy or safety concern involving sensitive personal data
• A valid court order requiring removal
• The submitter credibly withdraws material claims and the report cannot stand on remaining evidence

A demand letter, cease-and-desist, or settlement offer from the subject is not, by itself, grounds for retraction. We review the factual substance of any legal correspondence and respond accordingly.

Independence and Conflicts of Interest

DisputeVoice does not accept advertising from contractors, home improvement businesses, or any industry that could be the subject of our reports. We do not offer paid profile upgrades, premium listing removal, or any arrangement by which a subject can pay to influence their coverage. Our revenue comes from consumers who pay to have their reports published — not from the industries we cover.

DisputeVoice's founder, Steven Chayer, is disclosed as having a personal financial dispute documented on the platform. This founding experience is publicly acknowledged and does not affect the editorial review of individual reports, which is conducted against the same evidence standards regardless of subject or industry.

Editorial decisions — what to publish, how to characterize facts, whether to retract — are made by the DisputeVoice editorial team without input from submitters, subjects, or commercial relationships.

Consumer Protection Articles: Editorial Standards

Our consumer protection library articles are held to the following standards:

• Primary sourcing. We cite primary sources — statutes, regulatory findings, agency publications, court decisions — rather than relying on secondary summaries where primary sources are available.
• Expert review. Articles covering legal rights, insurance processes, or regulatory procedures are reviewed for factual accuracy before publication.
• Date of publication and last review. Every article carries a publication date and a "last reviewed" date. We audit articles for accuracy on a rolling basis as laws and regulations change.
• Editorial disclaimer. All consumer protection articles carry a disclaimer clarifying that the content is for educational purposes and does not constitute legal advice.
• No sponsored content. We do not publish sponsored articles, native advertising, or paid placement in our consumer protection library.

Legal Framework

DisputeVoice operates as a publishing platform under the protections of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (47 U.S.C. § 230) with respect to third-party content submitted by consumers. Our original editorial content — including the drafting and editorial shaping of Lighthouse Reports — is produced under standard First Amendment and fair comment protections applicable to consumer journalism.

We are not a law firm, and nothing published on DisputeVoice constitutes legal advice. Consumers with specific legal questions about their dispute are encouraged to consult a licensed attorney in their state.

Contact and Press Inquiries

Journalists, researchers, and policy advocates with questions about our methodology, a specific published report, or our editorial process are welcome to contact us directly.

Subjects of published reports who wish to submit a response, request a correction, or discuss a report's status should use the same contact channel.

General editorial inquiries: Contact DisputeVoice

For press and media inquiries, please indicate "Press Inquiry" in the subject line. We respond to press inquiries within one business day.

These editorial standards were adopted at the launch of DisputeVoice and are reviewed periodically. Material changes to these standards will be noted with a revision date above. Questions about these standards may be directed to the DisputeVoice editorial team via our contact page.