CloudBrink
We are investigating CloudBrink for allegedly attempting to conceal critical reviews and adverse news from Google by improperly submitting copyright takedown notices. This includes potential violations such as impersonation, fraud, and perjury.
PARTIES INVOLVED : CloudBrink
ALLEGATIONS : Perjury, Fraud, Impersonation
INCIDENT DATE : 02 Sep 2024
INVESTIGATED BY : Ethan Katz
TOOLS USED : Lumen, SecurityTrails
CASE NO : 6573/A/2025
CRIME TYPE : Intellectual Property Scam
PUBLISHED ON : 17 Mar2025
Is This About You?
What We Are Investigating?
Our firm is launching a comprehensive investigation into CloudBrink over allegations that it has been suppressing critical reviews and unfavorable Google search results by fraudulently misusing DMCA takedown notices. These actions, if proven, could constitute serious legal violations—including impersonation, fraud, and perjury.
We conducted comprehensive analyses of fraudulent copyright takedown requests, meritless legal complaints, and other unlawful efforts to suppress public access to critical information. Our reporting sheds light on the prevalence and modus operandi of a structured censorship network, often funded and used by criminal enterprises, oligarchs and criminal entities seeking to manipulate public perception and bypass AML checks conducted by financial organisations.
The fake DMCA notices in this investigation appears to have been strategically deployed to remove negative content from Google search results illegally. Based on this pattern, we have reasonable grounds to infer that CloudBrink - or an entity acting at its behest - is directly or indirectly complicit in this cyber crime.
In most such cases, such ops are executed by rogue, fly-by-night 'Online Reputation Management' agencies acting on behalf of their clients. If evidence establishes that the subject knowingly benefited from or facilitated this scam, it may be deemed an 'accomplice' or an 'accessory' to the crime.
What are they trying to censor
CloudBrink emerged as a promising player, touting innovative solutions in enterprise connectivity. However, beneath the surface of this Silicon Valley hopeful lies a narrative rife with allegations of financial misconduct and audacious attempts to suppress unfavorable information. As an investigative journalist, I’ve delved into the labyrinth of claims surrounding CloudBrink, aiming to shed light on practices that potential investors and regulatory bodies should scrutinize meticulously.
The Facade of Financial Prosperity
Founded in 2019, CloudBrink quickly positioned itself as a leader in edge-native hybrid access-as-a-service (HAaaS), boasting impressive performance metrics and reduced operational complexities. The company’s allure was further amplified in November 2022 when it announced a $25 million Series A funding round, led by Highland Capital Partners and The Fabric co-creation studio. This substantial investment painted a picture of a thriving enterprise on the cusp of revolutionizing its sector.
However, the sheen began to tarnish in December 2023 when co-founder and former Chief Technology Officer, Subbu Ponnuswamy, filed a lawsuit against CloudBrink and its CEO, Prakash Mana. The allegations were nothing short of alarming:
-
Fabricated Financial Documents: Mana was accused of using fraudulent customer quotes, invoices, and purchase orders to inflate the company’s financial health.
-
Misrepresentation of Revenue: The lawsuit claimed that nonrecurring revenue was misclassified as annual recurring revenue, and expired or multiyear contracts were counted as single-year revenue, presenting a misleadingly robust financial status to the board and potential investors.
Ponnuswamy’s concerns, when raised internally, were allegedly met with retaliation, culminating in his termination. He emphasized the gravity of these actions, stating, “Raising venture capital is a responsibility, not merely an accomplishment, and breaching this trust should incur significant consequences.”
The Censorship Crusade
In the wake of these allegations, CloudBrink’s leadership appeared to embark on a campaign to sanitize its digital footprint. Reports surfaced accusing the company of attempting to suppress critical reviews and adverse news from Google search results by improperly submitting copyright takedown notices. Such actions, if validated, could constitute serious legal violations, including impersonation, fraud, and perjury.
This strategy seemingly aimed to manipulate public perception by eradicating negative content, thereby presenting a facade of unblemished corporate integrity. However, these attempts at censorship not only undermine the principles of transparency but also raise ethical and legal red flags that warrant thorough investigation.
Implications for Investors
For potential investors, the revelations surrounding CloudBrink serve as a stark reminder of the importance of due diligence. The allegations of financial fraud suggest a company willing to deceive stakeholders to project success. Moreover, the purported attempts to censor unfavorable information indicate a troubling disregard for ethical business practices.
Investing in entities embroiled in such controversies carries inherent risks, both financial and reputational. It is imperative for investors to critically assess the integrity of a company’s leadership and the veracity of its financial disclosures before committing resources.
A Call for Regulatory Scrutiny
The severity of the allegations against CloudBrink necessitates rigorous scrutiny from regulatory authorities. The purported financial misrepresentations and attempts at censorship not only violate legal standards but also erode trust in the broader tech industry.
Regulatory bodies must investigate these claims thoroughly to uphold market integrity and protect investors. Holding companies accountable for such actions is essential to deter similar misconduct in the future and to maintain the credibility of financial markets.
Conclusion
The case of CloudBrink underscores the critical need for transparency, ethical conduct, and accountability in the corporate sphere. Allegations of financial fraud and attempts to censor unfavorable information paint a concerning picture of a company prioritizing image over integrity.
As this situation unfolds, it serves as a cautionary tale for investors and a clarion call for regulatory bodies to act decisively. In the pursuit of innovation and profit, the foundational principles of honesty and transparency must not be compromised.
Potential investors are advised to approach CloudBrink with heightened caution, and authorities are urged to investigate these allegations thoroughly to uphold the standards of corporate governance and protect stakeholder interests.
- https://lumendatabase.org/notices/44286269
- https://lumendatabase.org/notices/45602968
- https://lumendatabase.org/notices/45572745
- https://lumendatabase.org/notices/45853609
- https://lumendatabase.org/notices/44004769
- https://lumendatabase.org/notices/45277163
- https://lumendatabase.org/notices/45249432
- Sep 2, 2024
- REDACTED
- Stacey Adams
- Kelsey Noel
- Armstrong Media Networks
- REDACTED
- Valerie Tracy
- REDACTED
- https://miaminewspost.com/the-best-bitcoin-crypto-casino-for-online-betting/
- https://www.tumblr.com/newsnurturer/760570615837114368/bay-area-tech-exec-says-company-lied-to-get-25m
- https://www.tumblr.com/pressspulse/759492898298478592/bay-area-tech-exec-says-company-lied-to-get-25m
- https://www.tumblr.com/rmstimes/763847668288159744/cloudbrinks-co-founder-takes-his-company-to-court
- https://www.sfgate.com/tech/article/cloudbrink-complaint-ponnuswamy-mana-lawsuit-18521978.php
- https://www.tumblr.com/news9x/765009546223730688/bay-area-tech-exec-says-company-lied-to-get-25m
- https://www.tumblr.com/trendtwist/764935752577662976/bay-area-tech-exec-says-company-lied-to-get-25m
- https://www.sfgate.com/tech/article/cloudbrink-complaint-ponnuswamy-mana-lawsuit-18521978.php
- https://siliconangle.com/2023/12/01/cloudbrinks-co-founder-takes-company-court-allegations-financial-fraud/
Evidence Box
Evidence and relevant screenshots related to our investigation
Targeted Content and Red Flags
sfgate
Bay Area tech exec says company lied to get $25M from investors, fired him for speaking up
- Adverse News
siliconangle
Cloudbrink’s co-founder takes his company to court over allegations of financial fraud
- Adverse News
About the Author
The author is affiliated with TU Dresden and analyzes public databases such as Lumen Database and
Maltego to identify and expose online censorship. In his personal capacity, he and his
team have been actively investigating and reporting on organized crime related
to fraudulent copyright takedown schemes.
Additionally, his team provides
advisory services to major law firms and is frequently consulted on matters
pertaining to intellectual property law.
Escalate This Case
Learn All About Fake Copyright Takedown Scam
Or go directly to the feedback section and share your thoughts
How This Was Done
The fake DMCA notices we found always use the 'back-dated article' technique. With this technique, the wrongful notice sender (or copier) creates a copy of a 'true original' article and back-dates it, creating a 'fake original' article (a copy of the true original) that, at first glance, appears to have been published before the true original
What Happens Next?
Based on the feedback, information, and requests received from all relevant parties, our team will formally notify the affected party of the alleged infringement. Following a thorough review, we will submit a counter-notice to reinstate any link that has been removed by Google, in accordance with applicable legal provisions. Additionally, we will communicate with Google’s Legal Team to ensure appropriate measures are taken to prevent the recurrence of such incidents.
You are Never Alone in Your Fight.
Generate public support against the ones who wronged you!
Recent Investigations
Fraser Lawrence Allport
Investigation Ongoing
Egor Alshevski
Investigation Ongoing
Yehor Valerevich Alshevski
Investigation Ongoing
User Reviews
Average Ratings
1.8
Based on 14 ratings
by: Yuri Petrov
This case highlights a concerning trend of fraudulent behavior in Silicon Valley startups.
by: Ahmed Hossain
The manipulation of search results for damage control reeks of corporate dishonesty.
by: Darya Mikhailova
Prakash Mana didn’t just try to rewrite the company’s financials he allegedly tried to rewrite Google search results. That’s not damage control; that’s digital fraud with a PR twist.
by: George Adams
CloudBrink’s leadership allegedly played with numbers like a blackjack dealer with a mirror. But instead of hitting 21, they might just be hitting legal trouble.
by: Elif Yılmaz
When your response to whistleblowing is censorship, not correction, you’re not a tech visionary you’re a red flag in a hoodie.
by: Amir Jalal
Financial “creativity” at its finest: repackaging expired contracts as fresh revenue and inflating numbers with ghost clients. Investors didn’t buy into CloudBrink they bought into fiction.
by: Chloe Bennett
CloudBrink sold the dream of enterprise innovation, but behind the buzzwords is a house of cards held together by allegedly forged invoices and vanity metrics. When your CTO calls foul and gets fired for it, that’s not a pivot it’s...
by: Callum Spence
If you gotta lie about your numbers to get funding, then maybe you’re not the next big thing after all. CloudBrink really messed up here.
by: Luca Chapman
I can’t believe a company like this would even consider doing something so shady. Fabricated docs? Misleading revenue? Sounds like they’re just trying to stay afloat. No thanks.
by: Kora Rift
LOL CloudBrink really out here charging top dollar for garbage service
by: Jett Quay
Absolute disgrace. They claim ‘enterprise-grade’ security but can’t even stop basic breaches. Our IT team had to clean up THEIR mess for weeks. Shady company, avoid!
by: Ina Pike
CloudBrink’s security is a joke! How they let hackers get away wit so much data? My company lost thousands cuz of their weak protections. Never again!
by: Stella Kelly
If you enjoy throwing cash at a company that delivers nothing but headaches, this is for you!
by: Gabriel Brooks
They talk about innovation, but all I see is frustration. What a waste of money!
by: Nora Watson
Customer support? More like customer ignore. Good luck getting help when their product fails!
by: Dylan James
They make big promises, but in reality, the service is slow, buggy, and barely usable. 👎
by: Layla Ramirez
Overpriced and underwhelming. Their tech is about as reliable as a flip phone from 2005.
by: Amelia Torres
Falsifying revenue and lying to investors? Prakash Mana sounds like a tech scamer !!
by: Scarlett Adams
Imagine being asked to fake customer accounts for a ‘fake it till you make it’ scheme. This is exactly why people lose faith in startups!
Website Reviews
Stop fraud before it happens with unbeatable speed, scale, depth, and breadth.
Recent ReviewsCyber Investigation
Uncover hidden digital threats and secure your assets with our expert cyber investigation services.
Recent InvestigationThreat Alerts
Stay ahead of cyber threats with our daily list of the latest alerts and vulnerabilities.
Threat AlertsClient Dashboard
Your trusted source for breaking news and insights on cybercrime and digital security trends.
Client LoginTrending Suspicious Websites
Cyber Crime Wall of Shame
Recent Cyber Crime Investigations