How We Report

What we believe about this sector

The online business economy is large, fast-moving, and underreported. Trade press tends to amplify what founders and operators want amplified. Mainstream business press treats the space as a curiosity when it covers it at all. Income screenshots circulate as if they were evidence. Vendor disclosures vary widely. Regulatory action is fragmented across federal agencies, state attorneys general, and class-action courts.

We believe the operators, investors, attorneys, and compliance staff working in this space deserve reporting that holds up under scrutiny. That belief shapes how we work.

Where stories come from

Stories originate from four primary places:

• Public documents — FTC actions, state AG investigations, SEC filings, court records, contracts, and earnings disclosures from public companies operating in this space.
• Tips — operators, former employees, investors, customers, and other sources who send us documents and leads.
• Industry interviews — recurring conversations with operators, fund managers, platform employees, and service providers across the categories we cover.
• Pattern recognition — when we see something happening across multiple operators or vendors, we report on the pattern.

Tips are sent to info@businessradar.org. We accept tips on background.

How we develop a story

Once a story is assigned, the reporting process follows the same general path:

• The editor identifies the central question or claim the article will answer.
• The editor gathers primary documents — filings, contracts, public statements, financial records — that bear on the question.
• The editor conducts interviews with named or on-background sources who have first-hand knowledge.
• The editor independently verifies factual claims against documents and corroborating sources before publication.
• The editor requests comment from any company, operator, or individual the article scrutinizes.
• The article is written, edited, fact-checked, and published.

We do not run stories built on a single anonymous source. We do not run stories built on income screenshots alone. We do not run stories without giving the subject an opportunity to respond.

What we ask

Across categories, the questions we return to are the same:

• How is money actually being made?
• What are the contractual terms between the operator, the customer, and the platforms?
• What do filings, complaints, refunds, and chargebacks show?
• Who benefits, and who pays?
• What does the regulatory environment look like, and how is it changing?

We ask these questions because they are durable. Whether the category is done-for-you ecommerce, AI agencies, coaching programs, rental arbitrage, or affiliate publishing, the questions hold.

How we handle income claims

Income screenshots, revenue numbers, and earnings figures in this space are routinely cited as evidence. We treat them as starting points for reporting, not as evidence.

When an operator claims a revenue figure, we ask:

• Is the figure gross or net?
• What does the underlying financial record show?
• Is the figure verifiable against payment processor data, marketplace seller dashboards, or independent records?
• Is the figure representative or cherry-picked?

We do not republish income claims without independent corroboration. When we cannot corroborate a figure, we do not publish it.

How we handle on-background sourcing

Many operators, investors, and platform employees in this space will not speak on the record. They have ongoing business relationships, contracts that restrict public commentary, or regulatory exposure that makes named sourcing impractical.

We use on-background sourcing when it is necessary to get the story right. When we do, the article describes who the source is, what their role is, and why they spoke on background.

We do not use anonymous sources to make claims we cannot independently verify. An on-background source is a starting point for reporting, not a substitute for evidence.

How we handle regulatory coverage

Regulatory developments are a major part of our beat. When we report on regulatory action, we:

• Link to the underlying document — the FTC complaint, the AG settlement, the court filing.
• Describe what the action actually says, not what either side claims it says.
• Quote the relevant statutory or regulatory language when it matters.
• Provide context — prior actions in the space, related cases, and how the action fits the broader regulatory environment.
• Reach out to the parties involved for comment.

We do not editorialize about enforcement priorities. We report on what regulators do.

How we handle conflicts of interest

Our editors have backgrounds as operators, investors, or service providers in the categories we cover. That experience is what makes the reporting possible. It also creates the potential for conflicts of interest.

Editors disclose any financial or personal relationship with companies they cover. When a relationship would compromise coverage, the article is reassigned. When disclosure is sufficient, it is published with the article.

Editors do not hold equity in companies they cover, accept consulting income from companies they cover, or take gifts or paid hospitality from companies they cover. Bright-line commitments are spelled out in our editorial standards.

How we use AI

We use AI as a research and editing assistant — for transcript handling, source cross-referencing, summarization of long documents, and editorial review. Final articles are written and edited by our named editors. AI does not generate publishable copy on its own.

We do not use AI-generated images of real people, AI-generated quotes, or AI-generated data.

Corrections, retractions, and updates

We correct factual errors transparently. The full corrections policy is on our corrections page.

Contact

For tips, documents, and editorial inquiries: info@businessradar.org

We accept tips on background. If you have documents that contradict published narratives in this space, we want to see them.