When several kindly-worded email takedown requests reportedly addressed from Amar Harrag failed to result in removal of a SanDiegoVille article, a separate and highly unusual series of events followed. A nearly word-for-word copy of SanDiegoVille’s original reporting appeared on a third-party webpage, carrying a publication date one day earlier than the authentic article. That apparent copy was then cited in a Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) copyright complaint submitted to Google from Finland, resulting in SanDiegoVille’s original story being removed from Google search results and its website.
SanDiegoVille has since republished the article, and counsel retained on the matter has submitted a formal appeal challenging the takedown. SanDiegoVille’s attorney characterized the copyright claim as “complete fraud.”
SanDiegoVille has not independently established who created the copied page, who selected the backdated publication date, or whether Harrag personally knew about or authorized the copyright complaint. What can be documented is the extraordinary sequence of events leading to it.
On June 12, 2024, SanDiegoVille published an article titled: “San Diego District Attorney Opens Investigation Into Local Restaurant Group Following Unpaid Wages Allegation & Protest.” The story followed SanDiegoVille’s earlier reporting concerning former employees of operations at The Guild Hotel who alleged they had not received their final wages after Harrag’s Be Saha Hospitality ceased managing the hotel’s food, beverage and event programs.
The June 12 article reported that SanDiegoVille had been contacted directly by an investigator assigned to the San Diego County District Attorney’s Workplace Justice Division.
“I came across your story that was published on June 4th regarding the issues,” investigator Yvette Gaines wrote at the time. “I was hoping I could get assistance getting in contact with any of the victims that have been affected by this.”
The article quoted Gaines explaining that former employees could decide whether they wished to cooperate after speaking with investigators. The story also reported that workers had held a protest outside Harrag’s Wormwood restaurant in North Park and that employees alleged they were still owed gratuities and service-related compensation, even after wages for their labor were paid.
Harrag later disputed the implication that there had been a meaningful investigation, telling SanDiegoVille that he had received contact from the city attorney’s office and that the matter went no further after employees were paid. The original article, however, reported what SanDiegoVille had been told directly by a named District Attorney investigator at the time.
Beginning in September 2025, SanDiegoVille received a series of emails from an address bearing Harrag’s name. The emails repeatedly requested that the June 2024 article be removed, updated or hidden from Google search results. The first lengthy request described the story as outdated and said it had caused lasting damage to Harrag’s personal and professional reputation.
“This article, while based on a snapshot of events at the time, is now outdated, and it no longer reflects the reality of the situation,” the September 19 email stated. “The challenges we faced regarding wage payments were real, but they were addressed, and we worked hard to resolve them,” it continued.
The email asked SanDiegoVille to “remove the article or update it to reflect the truth of what has transpired since then.” When SanDiegoVille declined, follow-up messages continued.
“Any update on this?” an email sent September 22 asked.
“I’m not removing anything,” SanDiegoVille responded.
On June 12, 2024, SanDiegoVille published an article titled: “San Diego District Attorney Opens Investigation Into Local Restaurant Group Following Unpaid Wages Allegation & Protest.” The story followed SanDiegoVille’s earlier reporting concerning former employees of operations at The Guild Hotel who alleged they had not received their final wages after Harrag’s Be Saha Hospitality ceased managing the hotel’s food, beverage and event programs.
The June 12 article reported that SanDiegoVille had been contacted directly by an investigator assigned to the San Diego County District Attorney’s Workplace Justice Division.
“I came across your story that was published on June 4th regarding the issues,” investigator Yvette Gaines wrote at the time. “I was hoping I could get assistance getting in contact with any of the victims that have been affected by this.”
The article quoted Gaines explaining that former employees could decide whether they wished to cooperate after speaking with investigators. The story also reported that workers had held a protest outside Harrag’s Wormwood restaurant in North Park and that employees alleged they were still owed gratuities and service-related compensation, even after wages for their labor were paid.
Harrag later disputed the implication that there had been a meaningful investigation, telling SanDiegoVille that he had received contact from the city attorney’s office and that the matter went no further after employees were paid. The original article, however, reported what SanDiegoVille had been told directly by a named District Attorney investigator at the time.
Beginning in September 2025, SanDiegoVille received a series of emails from an address bearing Harrag’s name. The emails repeatedly requested that the June 2024 article be removed, updated or hidden from Google search results. The first lengthy request described the story as outdated and said it had caused lasting damage to Harrag’s personal and professional reputation.
“This article, while based on a snapshot of events at the time, is now outdated, and it no longer reflects the reality of the situation,” the September 19 email stated. “The challenges we faced regarding wage payments were real, but they were addressed, and we worked hard to resolve them,” it continued.
The email asked SanDiegoVille to “remove the article or update it to reflect the truth of what has transpired since then.” When SanDiegoVille declined, follow-up messages continued.
“Any update on this?” an email sent September 22 asked.
“I’m not removing anything,” SanDiegoVille responded.
The messages later shifted from requests to delete the article entirely to requests that it be de-indexed, meaning the article would remain accessible on the website to those with a direct link but would no longer appear in Google search results.
SanDiegoVille eventually demanded that the emails stop. The article was never removed or de-indexed by SanDiegoVille.
In direct text messages, however, Harrag told SanDiegoVille that he had not known the emails were being sent.
On October 24, 2025, SanDiegoVille wrote to Harrag:
“To be candid, they read like something drafted by an online reputation firm, not from you directly - and I’m not interested in engaging with that type of templated outreach.”
Harrag responded:
“Good morning, I was not aware that they were emailing you.”
SanDiegoVille clarified:
“They’re emailing me as you.”
Harrag replied with a facepalm emoji.
Months later, on January 9, 2026, Harrag returned to the issue and again said he had not agreed to the prior emails.
“Good morning, I hope that those emails stopped as I had never agreed to that,” Harrag wrote.
He then personally asked that the article be removed, writing:
“Would you be open to removing that old article about being investigated? It was incorrect: I had received a call from the city attorney’s office but since I had paid up all the employees within 3 days, there was nothing more to that.”
On January 9, 2026, SanDiegoVille responded that the emails had not stopped and again declined to remove the reporting.
Several months later, a copyright infringement complaint was submitted to Google. On July 24, 2026, Google notified SanDiegoVille that it had removed the article in response to a copyright complaint alleging that the June 12, 2024 article infringed someone else’s work.
The notice stated:
“Google has been notified that your site allegedly infringes upon the copyrights of others, and violates applicable copyright laws in your region.”
Google said it was removing the reported URL from search results globally and identified the affected page as SanDiegoVille’s June 2024 article. According to information associated with the claim, the request was submitted from Finland.
The complaint indicated that it originated from Finland. Why would someone in Finland claim ownership of reporting created by a San Diego news organization concerning San Diego businesses, San Diego workers, and communications with the San Diego County District Attorney's Office?
“If removing the article is not feasible, would you consider de-indexing it from Google’s search results?” stated a September 29 email signed as Harrag. “This would significantly reduce its ongoing impact on my personal and professional life, while still keeping it available on your website for reference.”
SanDiegoVille eventually demanded that the emails stop. The article was never removed or de-indexed by SanDiegoVille.
In direct text messages, however, Harrag told SanDiegoVille that he had not known the emails were being sent.
On October 24, 2025, SanDiegoVille wrote to Harrag:
“To be candid, they read like something drafted by an online reputation firm, not from you directly - and I’m not interested in engaging with that type of templated outreach.”
Harrag responded:
“Good morning, I was not aware that they were emailing you.”
SanDiegoVille clarified:
“They’re emailing me as you.”
Harrag replied with a facepalm emoji.
Months later, on January 9, 2026, Harrag returned to the issue and again said he had not agreed to the prior emails.
“Good morning, I hope that those emails stopped as I had never agreed to that,” Harrag wrote.
He then personally asked that the article be removed, writing:
“Would you be open to removing that old article about being investigated? It was incorrect: I had received a call from the city attorney’s office but since I had paid up all the employees within 3 days, there was nothing more to that.”
On January 9, 2026, SanDiegoVille responded that the emails had not stopped and again declined to remove the reporting.
Several months later, a copyright infringement complaint was submitted to Google. On July 24, 2026, Google notified SanDiegoVille that it had removed the article in response to a copyright complaint alleging that the June 12, 2024 article infringed someone else’s work.
The notice stated:
“Google has been notified that your site allegedly infringes upon the copyrights of others, and violates applicable copyright laws in your region.”
Google said it was removing the reported URL from search results globally and identified the affected page as SanDiegoVille’s June 2024 article. According to information associated with the claim, the request was submitted from Finland.
The complaint indicated that it originated from Finland. Why would someone in Finland claim ownership of reporting created by a San Diego news organization concerning San Diego businesses, San Diego workers, and communications with the San Diego County District Attorney's Office?
The article that the complainant alleged SanDiegoVille had infringed was published on the Notion platform and appears to reproduce substantial portions of SanDiegoVille's June 12, 2024 article while displaying a publication date of June 11, 2024, one day earlier than SanDiegoVille's original publication. SanDiegoVille, however, possesses the underlying reporting history, source communications, drafts, publication records, and other contemporaneous materials documenting the creation and publication of its article.
After Google acted on the DMCA complaint, SanDiegoVille retained counsel to challenge the removal. SanDiegoVille’s attorney has characterized the takedown claim as “complete fraud” and filed an appeal seeking restoration of the original article in Google’s search results.
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act process is designed to allow copyright owners to act quickly when their work is stolen. Because online platforms often remove or restrict content before a dispute is fully litigated, the system depends heavily on truthful representations by those submitting claims.
When that process is manipulated using copied and artificially backdated material, the damage is not theoretical. Search visibility can disappear immediately. News coverage can become harder to find. Publishers must spend time and money retaining counsel, preserving evidence and filing counter-notices simply to restore access to their own work.
At this stage, SanDiegoVille is not asserting that Harrag personally created the Notion page or personally submitted the copyright claim. We at SanDiegoVille have reached out to Harrag via text and email and will update this article as necessary if we receive a substantive response.
Harrag previously said a reputation-management company had contacted SanDiegoVille under his name without his knowledge or approval. He also wrote in January that “scammers” had attempted to monetize the controversy surrounding the original reporting. Those statements create several possibilities.
A reputation-management contractor may have acted without fully informing its client. A third party may have submitted the claim independently. Someone may have believed that manufacturing an earlier publication date would be enough to fool Google’s automated or preliminary review process.
Within an hour of submitting the DMCA appeal, Google restored access to the original article and stated:
"We have reviewed your request to reinstate content that we removed in response to a copyright removal request. The law requires us to act expeditiously on removal requests. Upon review, however, we determined that the request was invalid, so we have restored access globally to the content".
When that process is manipulated using copied and artificially backdated material, the damage is not theoretical. Search visibility can disappear immediately. News coverage can become harder to find. Publishers must spend time and money retaining counsel, preserving evidence and filing counter-notices simply to restore access to their own work.
At this stage, SanDiegoVille is not asserting that Harrag personally created the Notion page or personally submitted the copyright claim. We at SanDiegoVille have reached out to Harrag via text and email and will update this article as necessary if we receive a substantive response.
Harrag previously said a reputation-management company had contacted SanDiegoVille under his name without his knowledge or approval. He also wrote in January that “scammers” had attempted to monetize the controversy surrounding the original reporting. Those statements create several possibilities.
A reputation-management contractor may have acted without fully informing its client. A third party may have submitted the claim independently. Someone may have believed that manufacturing an earlier publication date would be enough to fool Google’s automated or preliminary review process.
Whatever the explanation, the documented chronology is unusual. Months of requests to delete or de-index the article were followed by the appearance of a substantially similar article on a third-party platform bearing an earlier publication date. A copyright complaint relying on that article then resulted in the temporary removal of SanDiegoVille's original reporting from Google's search results before Google restored it after determining that the request was invalid.
That chronology does not establish who created the third-party page, submitted the complaint, or directed that either occur. It does, however, present a sequence of events that raises legitimate questions and warrants explanation.
Originally published July 28, 2026.