UniCourt

Independent Sources

Shown for context — not merged with USAComplaints' own numbers.

Contacts

• Official website (shows a bot-check page to automated visitors): https://unicourt.com/
• Phone listed on BBB: 866-959-1339

Locations

Found your name on UniCourt? What you can do

UniCourt is a legal-data company that publishes searchable pages about federal and state court cases, and one of those pages may be showing up when you search your own name. UniCourt has told the Better Business Bureau that it “believes in open access to court records” and that “the records UniCourt offers are reflective of those made available to the public by the court”.

A few practical, realistic steps, in a reasonable order:

• Check the case page against the court's own docket first. Confirm the case is actually about you and that the details UniCourt shows (parties, case number, status) match what the court's own records say.
• Look for UniCourt's own removal option. UniCourt has told the BBB that it provides “a clear process for requesting the redaction of a record by submitting a Public Records Redaction Request,” and describes that as “the most expedient and effective way to address the concerns” of someone in your position. This page cannot tell you how long that takes or guarantee an outcome — UniCourt's own BBB responses don't promise a timeline either.
• If the court has sealed or expunged your case, or you think you qualify, ask the court, not just UniCourt. UniCourt itself has told the BBB that if someone meets “the courts standards,” a sealing order “would remove the record from the public domain.” Removing a web page is not the same thing as changing the court's own record, so the court is the place to start if what you actually want is for the underlying record to no longer be public.
• Once the UniCourt page is removed or changed, ask Google to refresh it. Google's “Refresh outdated content” tool is meant for exactly this: a page was deleted or changed at the source, but Google's search result or cache hasn't caught up. Google's separate “Results about you” tool is mainly built for contact details like your address, phone number, or email showing up in results, not for a court-case listing itself, and Google is clear that removing something from Google Search “might still be on the internet” — it changes what shows in search, not what UniCourt or the court has on file.
• If you believe the case is not actually about you, raise that in your redaction request and keep a copy of what you send. The sources reviewed for this page do not show how UniCourt handles mistaken-identity claims.

Do California privacy laws let you delete a court record from UniCourt?

Probably not by themselves. The California Attorney General's guide to the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) says that personal information “does not include publicly available information that is from federal, state, or local government records.” Court records generally fall on that side of the line.

California's Delete Request and Opt-out Platform (DROP) lets California residents send a single deletion request to all active registered data brokers, and brokers must process those requests beginning August 1, 2026. The state's own consumer page warns that brokers may keep data that is exempt under the law, and it lists public records as an example. UniCourt does not appear in California's data broker registry files for 2020 through 2026 (checked September 27, 2026), so a DROP request would not be routed to it as a registered broker.

In practice, the routes that change what a court record shows are the court's own sealing or expungement process and, for UniCourt's copy, UniCourt's redaction request.

How UniCourt's business works

According to the Trama class-action complaint, which quotes UniCourt's own site, UniCourt organizes court data from federal and state courts, citing a database of “250 million+” lawsuits, and sells access to a suite of tools built on that data. The complaint quotes UniCourt's site describing products including UniCourt DEEP (an “AI-powered Docket Extraction and Enrichment Platform”), UniCourt DART (for litigation trends), “Powered by UniCourt” integrations covering “all federal courts and over 3,000 state court systems,” plus Docket Research, Docket Tracking, Litigation Strategy, and Experience Management products.

The complaint alleges these products are marketed to law firms and insurance companies as monthly subscriptions “ranging from $129.99 to $199” — those figures come from the plaintiffs' complaint describing UniCourt's own site, not from a source independent of that litigation. UniCourt also runs a separate developer-facing site, docs.unicourt.com, describing itself as the “UniCourt Enterprise API” which on September 27, 2026 carried the banner “Upgrade now to our exciting new platform! The current platform will eventually be retired.”.

Company background

According to the Better Business Bureau's file, the business (listed there as “UniCourt,” category Legal Information Services) was started and incorporated in July 2014, is organized as a corporation, and lists UniCourt Inc as an alternate name. BBB gives its address as PO Box 1106, Tustin, CA 92781-1106, phone (866) 959-1339, and names Josh Blandi as CEO and customer contact.

Court filings describe the company differently: the Trama class-action complaint's docket caption names the defendant “UniCourt Inc.,” while the complaint itself alleges that “Defendant UniCourt Research, Inc., d/b/a as UniCourt, is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware with its headquarters and principal place of business in Los Angeles, California” — that is the plaintiffs' allegation about the company's corporate structure, not an independently confirmed fact.

UniCourt's own website, unicourt.com, shows automated visitors a “confirm you are human” verification page rather than its content, so this page could not open or quote UniCourt's own policies directly; what UniCourt says about itself here comes from its business responses on file with the BBB and from quotes of its site captured in the Trama complaint.

What UniCourt says about itself

In its own words, from business responses UniCourt has filed with the Better Business Bureau:

• “UniCourt believes in open access to court records. We organize and publish court records and make them universally accessible and useful to the public.”
• “The records UniCourt offers are reflective of those made available to the public by the court.”
• “UniCourt provides a clear process for requesting the redaction of a record by submitting a Public Records Redaction Request… This is the most expedient and effective way to address the concerns of the complainant.”
• “Individuals may wish to file a motion to seal a record with the court. If they meet the courts standards, an appropriate sealing order would remove the record from the public domain.”

UniCourt's responses on file also routinely state that the person complaining has “never been UniCourts customer or subscriber” and point to the company's own Public Records Policy; BBB removes any links included in those responses, so this page cannot verify or link to that policy directly.

Complaint record: USAComplaints, BBB, and Trustpilot, reported separately

USAComplaints has no complaints of its own about UniCourt. UniCourt appears only as a cited link in two unrelated posts on this site (from 2019 and 2025), not as the subject of a complaint.

Separately, the Better Business Bureau's file lists 60 complaints in the last three years, with 8 closed in the last 12 months. Of the 10 complaints BBB displays in detail, 8 are marked “Answered,” 1 “Resolved,” and 1 “Unresolved.” One example, dated August 17, 2026, describes a consumer saying a court matter is erroneously associated with their name and that UniCourt requires payment to view the posting's details — that is one consumer's own account, not a verified finding about UniCourt's practices generally. BBB customer reviews separately average 1 out of 5 from 6 reviews.

Separately again, UniCourt's Trustpilot profile is unclaimed and shows a TrustScore of 2.5 out of 5 from 5 reviews; Trustpilot notes the company “hasn't invited their customers” to review it. The recent reviews on that profile, from December 2024 through July 2026, are all 1-star and describe a recurring theme: reviewers say UniCourt declined to remove case pages they asked about, including one describing content about a crime victim's case and another about a case the reviewer says was dismissed.

None of these three figures — USAComplaints' 0, BBB's 60 complaints and 6 reviews, or Trustpilot's 5 reviews — describe the same population of people or the same time period, and none are added together here.

Litigation record

UniCourt is currently a defendant in a putative class action, Trama et al. v. UniCourt Inc., filed June 12, 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (No. 2:25-cv-05338-FMO-MAA) by four named plaintiffs (three from California, one from Washington). The complaint alleges UniCourt uses people's names from its lawsuit database, without their consent, to advertise its paid subscriptions through search-engine “lawsuit preview pages,” and brings claims under California's right-of-publicity statute (Cal. Civ. Code §3344), California common-law right of publicity, unjust enrichment, and the Washington Personality Rights Act (RCW 63.60). These are allegations, not proven facts. The docket shows briefing on early motions in late 2025 and an entry titled “Dismiss AND Strike” (March 18, 2026, whose result is not available from the docket text), then filed an Answer to the complaint on May 1, 2026, followed by a motion to change venue (May 22, 2026) and, as of September 23, 2026, a protective order and filings titled “Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction” and “Stay Case.” The case remains pending, with no ruling on the merits found as of this page's last check.

In an older case, Weiler v. Google, L.L.C. (Ohio Court of Appeals, Eighth District, No. 112038, 2023-Ohio-3357, decided September 21, 2023), a pro se plaintiff sued Google, Justia, UniCourt, Inc. and others for libel over search and index results showing information about his own lawsuit. The trial court dismissed the case because the claims were time-barred and the plaintiff failed to allege that any defendant made a false statement, and the court of appeals affirmed that dismissal.

A third, minor case, McDonald v. Unicourt (N.D. Tex., No. 4:24-cv-00862), was filed pro se on September 10, 2024, and dismissed without prejudice on October 31, 2024 for lack of prosecution and a fee deficiency — it did not reach the merits.

Is UniCourt Legitimate?

UniCourt is a real, operating company: the Better Business Bureau's file shows it was started and incorporated in July 2014, and it appears as a named party in federal and state court records, including as an active defendant answering a pending class action. That is different from a finding about whether any particular practice of UniCourt's is lawful: the Trama class action's claims about how UniCourt uses people's names are pending and unresolved, and this page does not predict or characterize how that case will come out.

This page does not assign UniCourt a rating, a score, or a “scam” label of its own. What can be said factually: UniCourt operates by republishing information that is, per its own account, already public through the courts; it has a BBB file with 60 complaints in the last three years and customer-review scores of 1 out of 5 on BBB and 2.5 out of 5 on Trustpilot; and it is currently defending a putative class action over how it uses people's names. Readers can weigh that record for themselves alongside UniCourt's own stated position, quoted above.

Court & Public Records

Frequently Asked Questions