Public Records Aren’t Public Truth
In a digital age where a Google search often serves as judge and jury, “public records” have become a powerful force in shaping reputations. From court dockets to real estate liens, traffic violations to bankruptcy filings, these documents are often interpreted as objective truths—facts that speak for themselves. But the reality is more complicated. Public records reflect legal processes, not always factual accuracy, moral wrongdoing, or the full context behind a case.
This blog aims to dismantle the illusion that public records equate to public truth. We’ll explore how they’re created, the risks of misinterpretation, and the consequences of their weaponization by aggregators, journalists, and curious Googlers.
What Are Public Records?
Public records are documents and data maintained by government entities that are legally available to the public. These may include:
Court filings (civil, criminal, bankruptcy)
Property records
Marriage and divorce filings
Arrest logs and police reports
Business registrations
Government financial disclosures
Administrative proceedings
In theory, these records exist to promote transparency, accountability, and civic engagement. But in practice, they are often incomplete, outdated, misinterpreted, or taken out of context.
The Myth of Objectivity
Public records are commonly viewed as impartial, neutral documents. But consider this:
Court complaints are accusations, not evidence.
Arrests are not convictions.
A notice of default is not foreclosure.
A dismissed lawsuit may still show up as a “case filed.”
Most people fail to differentiate between legal allegations and proven facts. Even worse, data aggregators and search engines often present legal filings as definitive events—without clarifying whether the person was cleared, the case was settled, or the claim was frivolous.
The Role of Aggregator Sites
Aggregator websites like UniCourt, Trellis, Justia, and PacerMonitor scrape court records and compile profiles on individuals and businesses. While some of these platforms serve a professional audience (like attorneys and journalists), many are designed for public consumption—with SEO tactics aimed at dominating Google search results.
Their algorithms prioritize keywords like:
“Lawsuit”
“Bankruptcy”
“Foreclosure”
“Arrest record”
But here’s the catch: they rarely offer nuance or follow-up.
A person could have a case dismissed or win in court—but the aggregator will still show the initial filing as if it defines that person’s legal status.
Context Is Everything
Let’s examine a few scenarios where public records mislead:
🔹 Example 1: Civil Litigation
A business owner is sued by a former vendor for breach of contract. The lawsuit is settled privately with no admission of wrongdoing. Yet a basic court search will still show the case title and filing, giving the impression of guilt—even years after resolution.
🔹 Example 2: Foreclosure Proceedings
A real estate investor is served with a foreclosure notice during a restructuring period. They file Chapter 11 bankruptcy and successfully save their portfolio. The public record shows “foreclosure initiated,” but not the outcome.
🔹 Example 3: Criminal Accusation
An individual is arrested on suspicion of fraud, but charges are dropped due to lack of evidence. The arrest record remains searchable—even though the person was never tried or convicted.
In each of these cases, the public record contains a partial truth—but not the full picture.
The Problem with Permanence
Unlike social media posts or news stories, public records do not disappear. They live indefinitely on databases that may or may not be maintained accurately. And once they’re indexed by Google, they become part of a person’s digital footprint—even if the information is outdated or resolved.
This creates several major problems:
1. Reputational Harm
Employers, clients, lenders, and partners may Google a name and see misleading records. This can lead to missed opportunities, social stigma, and unjust assumptions.
2. Lack of Updates
Aggregator sites often fail to update records to reflect case dismissals, settlements, or reversals. A filing made in 2018 might be shown without noting that it was dismissed in 2019.
3. Lack of Human Review
Automated scraping means these records are processed without editorial oversight. A court system typo—like listing the wrong party as a defendant—can have long-term consequences online.
Public Access vs. Public Judgment
We live in a country that values open courts and accessible government. That’s a good thing. But open access shouldn’t lead to trial by search engine. The court of public opinion lacks legal standards, due process, or the benefit of rebuttal.
Here’s how the public’s consumption of records differs from actual legal review:
Legal ProcessPublic Search BehaviorFacts reviewed by judge or juryHeadlines and case titles skimmedContext and timelines matterFirst result = assumed truthInnocent until proven guilty“Where there’s smoke…” assumptionNuanced resolution processBlack-and-white judgment
The Business of Misrepresentation
Many aggregator platforms are monetized—either through ads, premium subscriptions, or SEO tools. Some charge individuals to “unlock” or suppress records about themselves. This creates a perverse incentive: the more damaging a record appears, the more valuable it becomes to the platform.
Some even sell “reputation management” services to remove the very data they published in the first place.
This isn’t about justice—it’s about clicks.
How Legal Records Can Be Misused
Public records are frequently weaponized for:
Character assassination in business disputes
Divorce and custody battles
Political opposition research
Online harassment and doxxing
Anonymous reporting on message boards
And unlike journalism, these uses require no fact-checking or accountability. Aggregated data becomes a tool of distortion rather than clarity.
Why “Public” Should Not Mean “Permanent”
The First Amendment protects access to information. But we must balance that with the rights to:
Privacy
Redemption
Fair interpretation
Digital due process
Many countries in the EU now recognize the “right to be forgotten,” which allows people to request the removal of outdated or misleading content from search engines. In the U.S., however, once a record is public, it is practically immortal.
But public interest should be proportional—not permanent. A traffic violation from 15 years ago shouldn’t appear next to someone’s professional profile in 2025.
Building a Better Standard
To restore fairness, we need systemic reforms. These could include:
✅ Expiration Dates for Public Records in Search Engines
Implement time limits for indexing outdated filings.
✅ Mandatory Contextualization
Require aggregator sites to show case outcomes, not just filings.
✅ AI Detection of Irrelevant or Resolved Cases
Use machine learning to flag and deprioritize irrelevant data.
✅ Opt-Out Procedures
Create legal pathways to delist or de-index old or inaccurate records.
✅ Disclaimers on Aggregator Sites
Display warnings: “This case may not reflect final outcome.”
These reforms wouldn’t erase facts—but they would restore context and reduce harm.
What You Can Do If You’re Affected
If misleading public records are harming your reputation, consider the following steps:
1. Verify Accuracy
Check with the original court or agency to see if the information is correct.
2. Contact the Aggregator
Many sites have correction or takedown processes. Request updates or removals.
3. File for Redaction or Expungement
In some jurisdictions, certain records can be sealed or expunged through legal channels.
4. Work with a Reputation Management Firm
Professional help may be needed to push down or remove search results.
5. Create New Authoritative Content
Blog posts, interviews, press releases, and thought leadership content can help reclaim your narrative online.
Conclusion: Public Records, Private Consequences
It’s time to dispel the illusion that public records tell the full truth. They are snapshots—sometimes blurry, often incomplete, and frequently misunderstood.
In an era where search engines shape reputations, we must question how information is presented, processed, and preserved. Because while the courts may deliver legal outcomes, the internet often delivers social verdicts without context, compassion, or correction.
Public records may be public—but that doesn’t make them truth.
By Rafael Benavente
Legal Record Update:
The case Decimal Capital Partners LLC vs Rafael Benavente, filed under number 2023-018206-CA-01, appears on multiple aggregator sites such as Trellis.law. This blog addresses what’s often missing in those listings—context, resolution, and the reality behind the legal headlines.