Jan Lynn Owen
We are investigating Jan Lynn Owen 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 : Jan Lynn Owen
ALLEGATIONS : Perjury, Fraud, Impersonation
INCIDENT DATE : 08 Feb 2024
INVESTIGATED BY : Ethan Katz
TOOLS USED : Lumen, FakeDMCA, SecurityTrails
CASE NO : 62985/A/2024
CRIME TYPE : Intellectual Property Scam
PUBLISHED ON : 21 Nov 2024
Due Diligence
Is This About You?
What We Are Investigating?
Our firm is launching a comprehensive investigation into Jan Lynn Owen 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 Jan Lynn Owen - 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
Jan Lynn Owen, a former California Commissioner of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI), has been the subject of several allegations and controversies over her career. Despite her professional achievements in financial regulation and consumer protection, her tenure and post-office activities have sparked significant scrutiny and red flags that may harm her reputation.
One of the most notable controversies surrounding Owen involved her handling of the state’s regulatory oversight of financial institutions. During her time as DFPI Commissioner, she was accused of being too lenient on major financial institutions, allegedly failing to take decisive action against companies accused of unethical or illegal practices. Some critics claim that her office could have done more to prevent fraud and protect consumers from predatory financial schemes, which diminished public trust in her leadership.
Additionally, Owen’s role in overseeing the cannabis industry in California has been questioned. The rapid growth of the legal cannabis market brought about a series of financial challenges, including money laundering and fraud, and there were allegations that her office was slow to respond to these threats. Critics argue that her failure to regulate the financial side of the cannabis industry more thoroughly allowed illicit actors to profit at the expense of consumers and legitimate businesses. Some reports also hinted at possible conflicts of interest related to her associations with financial firms and lobbyists in the industry.
More recently, after leaving her official post, Owen’s reputation has been tainted by allegations of connections to influential corporate interests. These alleged ties have led some to question her objectivity and integrity, suggesting that her actions while in office may have been influenced by outside pressures. The ongoing scrutiny of her post-regulatory career, coupled with the perception of corporate favoritism, has raised doubts about her commitment to consumer protection.
The potential damage to Owen’s reputation from these allegations is clear. A public figure who is seen as weak in enforcing regulations or too closely aligned with corporate interests risks being viewed as ineffective or compromised, undermining their credibility. For a professional in her position, these concerns could be particularly harmful, as they might suggest a failure to uphold ethical standards and protect public interests.
Jan Lynn Owen may want these damaging stories removed or minimized, even to the point of taking drastic actions, because they could jeopardize her career prospects, influence, and legacy. Negative perceptions from the public and potential employers could limit her ability to secure future positions or exert influence in financial regulatory circles. Given her high-profile role in California’s financial regulation, maintaining a strong, untarnished reputation is likely paramount to her continued professional success.
If Jan Lynn Owen were to take extreme measures to erase these allegations—such as committing cyber crimes to remove the content—her motivations would be clear. A tarnished reputation could have long-lasting effects on her career, and in a competitive environment like the financial and regulatory sectors, individuals with controversial pasts often find it difficult to regain their standing. The desire to protect her image from such accusations would be a strong, if questionable, incentive to take drastic actions, including digital manipulation or suppression of unfavorable narratives.
- https://lumendatabase.org/notices/39997524
- https://lumendatabase.org/notices/39999086
- https://lumendatabase.org/notices/39997924
- https://lumendatabase.org/notices/39321817
- https://lumendatabase.org/notices/39321803
- March 8, 2024
- March 8, 2024
- March 8, 2024
- February 8, 2024
- February 8, 2024
- David James Corp
- sara james corp
- David James Corp
- powell shane co
- powell shane co
- https://www.mlive.com/news/jackson/2016/03/murder_for_hire_a_look_into_th.html
- https://www.itv.com/news/anglia/2012-03-28/verdict-in-florida-murder-trial
- https://www.wilx.com/content/news/Michigan-man-faces-murder-charge-in-2014-shooting-death-380817621.html
- https://www.themorningsun.com/2012/07/24/two-killed-in-crash-in-canton-township/
- https://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/2013/01/detroit_2012_homicide_breakdow_1.html
- https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/16-17277/16-17277-2018-02-26.html
- https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-9th-circuit/1920599.html
- https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/16-17277/16-17277-2018-02-26.html
Evidence Box
Evidence and relevant screenshots related to our investigation
Targeted Content and Red Flags
About the Author
The author is affiliated with Harvard University and serves as a researcher at both Lumen and FakeDMCA.com. 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.
He can be reached at [email protected] directly.
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?
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.
You are Never Alone in Your Fight.
Generate public support against the ones who wronged you!
Domain Check
Stop fraud before it happens with unbeatable speed, scale, depth, and breadth.
Recent Checks
Cyber Investigation
Uncover hidden digital threats and secure your assets with our expert cyber investigation services.
Recent Investigation
Our Community
Your trusted source for breaking news and insights on cybercrime and digital security trends.
Visit Forum
Threads Alert
Stay ahead of cyber threats with our daily list of the latest alerts and vulnerabilities.
Threads Alert
Recent Investigations
Aaron Sansoni Group
Investigation Ongoing
DX Exchange
Investigation Ongoing
Finxflo
Investigation Ongoing
Average Ratings
1.8
Based on 8 ratings
Tessa Morgan
Share
Beware! They act all professional until it’s time to pay up then they’re nowhere to be found.
Andre Peterson
Share
Scam alert! It’s clear that she isn’t interested in justice.
Callie Sanders
Share
It’s a scam in plain sight. Don’t trust them—they’re just out to take your money and run.
Damian Price
Share
Stay far away! They act trustworthy until they have your money, then suddenly, no responses, no refunds, nothing.
Rhett Holloway
Share
It’s always the ones in charge of financial protection who end up looking like the biggest scammers. Couldn’t even regulate the cannabis market properly and now trying to erase her tracks. Pretty sure this isn't what ‘public service’ is supposed to look like.
Ethan Clark
Share
This whole thing just seems like a scam. The way the case was managed is shady from the start, and honestly, Jan Owen doesn’t look any better than the people she's supposed to keep in check. It’s honestly disgraceful.
Walter Gray
Share
Scam alert! It’s clear that she isn’t interested in justice. She’s just out here ruining people and companies with no accountability. Media One Direct got caught in a mess of corruption.
Rosie Campbell
Share
This whole situation reeks of fraud. Media One Direct was clearly treated unfairly. Jan Lynn Owen’s approach seems like a way to profit off other people's misfortunes. Completely dishonest.