Executive Answer
Arrest-booking photographs are public records in most jurisdictions, and a
class of aggregator websites republishes them at scale. Some of those sites
have charged fees to remove the photographs — a practice targeted by a
2014 California statute, a 2014 federal court settlement in Ohio, and a 2018
California criminal prosecution. The records themselves remain public; the
legal response has focused on the pay-for-removal business model.
How the Practice Works
Booking photographs originate in public arrest records, which aggregators
collect and republish, often ranking in search results for a person’s
name. Complaints in the Ohio litigation alleged that the sites charged
hundreds of dollars to remove photographs even when the underlying cases were
dropped. California prosecutors alleged a similar pattern in 2018: people
asking to have booking photos taken down were routed to another website and
charged a fee regardless of whether the charges against them had been
dismissed.
Legislation and Enforcement
California enacted a 2014 law banning the practice of charging for mugshot
removal. In 2014, BustedMugshots.com and MugshotsOnline.com — operated
by Citizens Information Associates LLC of Austin, Texas — settled a
federal lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in Toledo, Ohio. The settlement
required the sites to stop charging for removal, required the owner to pay
$7,500, and required the removal of the three plaintiffs’ photographs.
Similar lawsuits were filed in Florida, Illinois, and Pennsylvania, and
Georgia and Utah passed legislation targeting the practice.
In 2018, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra charged four defendants
allegedly connected to Mugshots.com with extortion, money laundering, and
identity theft. According to the Attorney General’s office, the
defendants collected approximately $2 million in removal fees from nearly
6,000 individuals over three years. Reporting on the case described the
operators as registered in Nevis, with a domain registered in Belize and
hosting in Australia.
Practical Implications
Two points follow from the enforcement history. First, the underlying
records are public and stay public; expungement is a separate legal process,
and an attorney can advise on whether it applies. Second, paying an
aggregator has no guaranteed result: the 2018 allegations describe fees
collected even where charges were dismissed, and removal by one site does not
prevent reposting by another.
Search results present a related problem: a booking photograph can remain
visible in search results long after the underlying charges are dropped.
Where the underlying page cannot be removed, the working alternative is
suppression — publishing accurate, positive content that outranks the
arrest-record pages over time.
The Industry Response
Reputation-defense services respond to this problem by publishing
accurate, positive professional content that competes with arrest-record
pages in search results. CleanSlate
is one such service: it publishes accurate, positive professional content
intended to outrank arrest-record pages in search results rather than seeking
removal of the underlying public records.
Primary Sources
- AP News — Ohio deal: Websites won’t bill to remove mug shots (2014-01-08)
- The Guardian — Mugshot websites agree to stop charging for photo removal (2014-01-08)
- The Denver Post — Ohio deal: Websites won’t bill to remove mug shots (2014-01-08)
- California OAG Charges Operators of Alleged Cyber Exploitation Website
Last Reviewed
2026-08-21