Evelon DigitalReputation & Growthor you don't pay the removal fee
If an accepted review is not successfully removed, you don't pay the removal fee.
No removal fee if unsuccessful.
Timeframes start once you have approved the pricing, supplied the review links and we begin the agreed work.
Dental practices, GP clinics and allied health providers carry a double burden with reviews: the content can be serious and specific, and privacy obligations limit what you can safely say in public. Evelon Digital assesses the review against Google's policies and works from confirmation of practice-level facts only — never clinical detail — so a report can be made without exposing patient information.
Evelon Digital helps Australian businesses assess and pursue the removal of negative Google reviews. Every review is considered individually based on its content, context and available evidence.
Send us the review links. We’ll email our standard pricing straight away — no upfront removal payment.
Evelon's Google review removal service timeframes are 0–7 days for new reviews under 28 days old and 0–10 days for older reviews 28 days old or more. Timeframes start once you have approved the pricing, supplied the review links and we begin the agreed work.
Choosing a dentist or a GP is a trust decision, not a price decision. A review alleging a botched procedure, a misdiagnosis or unsafe practice carries far more weight with a prospective patient than a complaint about waiting time, and it often names a specific practitioner rather than the clinic.
The usual defence is unavailable. A restaurant can publicly explain what happened at table nine; a clinic generally cannot confirm that a person was even a patient, let alone discuss their treatment. Silence then reads to other readers as agreement.
That makes the policy route more important, not less. Google does not remove a review because a clinician disagrees with it, but it does have policies covering personal attacks, private information, content about the wrong business, and reviewers with a conflict of interest — and those can be pursued without disclosing anything clinical.
Every review is judged on its own content, context and evidence. Some of the situations below are ordinary feedback that stays published; others may engage a Google policy.
Many dental reviews follow a disagreement about a quote, a gap payment or how long a treatment plan took. These are usually permitted opinions, so we focus on whether the review also contains a policy issue, such as a false statement of fact, a named staff member being attacked, or a reviewer who was never a patient.
Dissatisfaction with a result, a cost or a wait is usually permitted feedback. We assess it honestly and will tell you when the realistic answer is a careful public reply rather than a report.
Claims of unsafe practice, unregistered practitioners or specific clinical failures are different from an opinion about a filling. Where the allegation is verifiably wrong at a practice level, that can be documented without any clinical disclosure.
Content aimed at a named dentist, doctor, nurse or receptionist — particularly where it becomes personal rather than about the service — is assessed against Google's policies on personal attacks and harassment.
Repeated reviews from the same person, abuse, slurs or intimidating language are assessed as conduct issues rather than as feedback about care.
Reviews that publish another person's health information, a family member's details, or identifying information about staff raise a private-information issue. We handle these without republishing the sensitive content ourselves.
Multi-site practices, practitioners who have moved and similarly named clinics generate misdirected reviews. Location and roster facts alone are often enough to show the review concerns a different place.
Reviews traced to a nearby practice, its staff or accounts with an obvious commercial interest are assessed as conflict-of-interest content, independent of what they allege.
Where an administrative check of appointment records for the relevant period finds no matching attendance, we document that search at an administrative level only.
A potential policy violation does not mean Google will remove the review — Google evaluates every report itself. If we accept a review and it isn't removed, you don't pay the removal fee. The categories are set out in our Google review policy guide.
We deliberately keep clinical information out of the file. Everything below is administrative or public, and we will never ask you to send treatment notes, images or diagnoses.
Please redact patient identifiers and clinical detail before sending anything. If a document contains more than we need, we would rather have a redacted version or a written confirmation of the relevant fact.
Give us the review URL and tell us what is disputed at a practice level — wrong site, wrong practitioner, no attendance record, abusive content. No clinical detail is required at any point.
We identify which policy category, if any, the content may engage: personal attacks, private information, conflict of interest, wrong business, or off-topic content. If it is permitted feedback, we tell you plainly.
We work from the minimum confirmation needed — for example, that no appointment exists for the name and window described, or that the named clinician does not practise at that location — and record how it was established.
The report argues the policy point without disclosing patient information, and we review it with you before it is filed so nothing sensitive is included.
Google assesses the report and decides. The initial assessment is free, there is no upfront removal payment, and any fee follows the written result terms agreed in advance.
After the assessment you will know where the review actually stands and what can be done without creating a privacy problem.
We confirm the category, the privacy-safe evidence we would use, the scope and the written fee before filing anything.
We name the single administrative confirmation that would strengthen the case, rather than asking for a broad file of patient records.
We say so, and can help you shape a public response that stays inside your privacy and professional obligations instead of pursuing a report that has no basis.
We explain the decision and any remaining options. Removal cannot be guaranteed, and we would not suggest otherwise.
Not because the clinic disagrees with it. A patient describing their own experience is generally permitted to do so. Where the review also contains false factual allegations, personal attacks on a practitioner, private information about another person, or content about a different clinic, there may be a policy basis to report it. We assess each review individually rather than ruling it out because a patient wrote it.
No. We work from administrative confirmations only — for example, whether an appointment existed in a given window, or whether a named practitioner worked at that site. Please redact clinical detail before sending anything. Nothing clinical belongs in a report to Google, and we will not ask for it.
It changes the strategy rather than the policy test. Because you cannot publicly confirm a treatment relationship, the assessment focuses on grounds that can be argued without disclosure — wrong business, private information, personal attacks, conflict of interest. It is also why a careful, non-specific public reply usually matters more for clinics than for other sectors.
It may be. Naming a clinician is not itself a breach, but content that shifts from the service to personal abuse, slurs or harassment of that person is assessed against Google's policies on personal attacks. Send us the review link and we will tell you honestly which side of that line the wording sits on.
Usually the location facts: your site addresses, the practitioners working at each, and any relevant trading-name history. Where the review describes a place or a clinician that cannot be yours, the mismatch can be documented without touching patient information.
Where there is evidence the reviewer has a commercial interest — a nearby practice, its staff, or an account with a clear pattern of promoting one clinic while attacking others — that conflict of interest is a policy issue in its own right, separate from the accuracy of what was written.
Sometimes. Reports are often refused because they argued dissatisfaction rather than a policy breach, or because they included no supporting evidence. We will look at what was submitted and tell you whether a better-framed report has a genuine basis — and if it does not, we will say so.
The guarantee covers the fee. Once we assess a review and accept it for the removal service, Guaranteed Removal applies: if that review is not successfully removed, you do not pay the removal fee. Google makes its own decision on every review — the guarantee is our payment commitment, not a claim about Google's decision. The initial assessment is free and there is no upfront removal payment.
Send us the review link and whatever records you already have. We will tell you honestly whether there is a policy basis worth pursuing, what it would involve and what it would cost — in writing, before anything is submitted. Google makes the final decision on removal.
Or call 1300 182 204 — tap to dial.
Start with our national Google review removal service, or run the free Google review assessment checker.
Local help by city
Help by review type