Integrity Defenders

UpdatedAugust 12, 2026

ByEpsteinWiki

The reputation firm Epstein approved in February 2012, the publicly identified company leaders, and the evidence showing why his team moved on

Snapshot

Entity: Integrity Defenders, Inc., also described in some public materials as Integrity Defender
Business: Online reputation management, search-engine optimization, privacy services, and internet marketing
Location at the relevant time: Andover, New Jersey
Founded: 2009, according to contemporary reporting
Documented Epstein connection: Epstein personally approved an advanced reputation-management package in February 2012
Quoted price: Approximately $2,449 plus tax in the February correspondence
Later fee reference: $2,149 in a May 2012 complaint about inadequate progress
Documented company account contact: Leslie Yueling, identified as an Integrity Defenders account manager
Publicly identified company leaders: Alan Assante, president; Eve McCormick, identified as CEO in a 2010 company release; Michael D’Alessio, identified as marketing director in 2011 and a company spokesperson in January 2012
Outcome: Epstein’s team concluded that the company was not making enough progress and recommended replacing it with Reputation Changer
Evidence classification: Documented reputation-management vendor. The reviewed evidence does not accuse the company or its personnel of participating in Epstein’s trafficking or abuse

Why Integrity Defenders Matters

Integrity Defenders represents an early, documented commercial stage of Jeffrey Epstein’s campaign to reshape what the public found when it searched his name.

By February 2012, Epstein’s 2008 Florida conviction and sex-offender status were established public facts. Released correspondence shows that his advisers were looking for a company that would move damaging coverage lower in search results. One forwarded message described Integrity Defenders as a technology group that worked to get “bad press off the Internet.”

The evidence is important for three reasons:

It shows that the campaign moved beyond informal advice and into a commercial vendor relationship.
It records Epstein’s personal approval of the proposed package.
It documents an unsuccessful stage of the campaign before the team turned to the more extensive Reputation Changer operation.

Integrity Defenders should not be confused with Reputation.com, Reputation Defender, Reputation Changer, or the generic field of reputation management. These were separate names and, where they referred to companies, separate businesses.

What the Company Publicly Sold

Integrity Defenders described itself as an online reputation and privacy-management company. Its public materials said that it created, managed, and promoted positive search results for customers.

In April 2011, TIME identified Alan Assante as the company’s president and described the company as a New Jersey business founded in 2009. Assante explained that the firm promoted clients’ accomplishments and other favorable information to suppress unwanted search results. TIME also reported that the service did not literally erase the underlying material. The objective was to bury negative links beneath more favorable pages.

Company releases described a broader set of services:

Creation and promotion of positive search results
Online privacy monitoring and removal services
Press releases, blogs, social media, and website development
Affiliate relationships with law firms and business consultants
Pay-per-click advertising and Google AdWords management

In January 2012, shortly before the Epstein engagement, a company release said Integrity Defenders already used pay-per-click strategies for reputation-management clients and planned to expand those services.

These descriptions establish the company’s advertised methods. They do not establish which particular techniques were used for Epstein.

Publicly Identified Leaders and Account Personnel

The public record does not provide a complete corporate ownership chart for Integrity Defenders during 2012. The following people are identified by contemporary reporting, company releases, or the released Epstein records.

Alan Assante

TIME identified Alan Assante as president of Integrity Defenders in April 2011. Forbes again identified him as president in 2015. He was the company’s most visible public representative in independent reporting.

Assante publicly described the firm’s work as promoting accomplishments and favorable information so that unwanted results would be suppressed. In 2015, he discussed services intended to move undesirable links off the first page of Google and, at higher prices, onto the third page.

Bloomberg’s 2026 investigation identified Assante as the company’s then-president in connection with the Epstein engagement and reported that he did not respond to a request for comment.

The reviewed Epstein records do not establish that Assante personally negotiated, approved, or managed Epstein’s account.

Eve McCormick

A March 2010 company press release identified Eve McCormick as CEO of Integrity Defender. The release attributed statements about the company’s growth and services to her.

That source establishes that McCormick was publicly presented as CEO in 2010. It does not establish that she still held that role in February 2012, that she owned the company, or that she knew about Epstein’s account.

Michael D’Alessio

A March 2011 company release identified Michael D’Alessio as marketing director. Other releases identified him as a company spokesperson, including a January 2012 announcement about pay-per-click campaign management.

D’Alessio was therefore part of the company’s public-facing management and marketing operation near the time of the Epstein engagement. No reviewed primary record establishes that he personally worked on Epstein’s account.

Leslie Yueling

The February 2012 email chain identifies Leslie Yueling as an account manager for Integrity Defenders. The message asked Epstein’s office to provide her with a credit card for the advanced package and stated that an Epstein adviser would liaise with the account manager.

Yueling is the only Integrity Defenders employee directly identified in the reviewed primary correspondence concerning the account. The released page redacts her direct contact information. The record does not disclose what work she performed after the account was approved.

Leslie Yueling should not be confused with Lesley Groff, Epstein’s assistant. They are different people with similar first names. Groff forwarded the request for Epstein’s approval. Yueling was identified as the vendor’s account manager.

Other Public Contact Names

Barbara Assante appeared as the contact on a 2010 company press release. Barbara Klein appeared as a contact on another company release. The reviewed sources do not establish either person as an owner, executive, or participant in Epstein’s account. They should not be described as principals without additional corporate records.

February 2012: The Engagement Begins

On February 7, 2012, an email was forwarded to Epstein asking him to confirm that his office should purchase Integrity Defenders’ advanced package for approximately $2,449 plus tax.

The underlying message said that Jeffrey wanted to be signed onto Integrity Defenders. It described the company as a technology group that worked to get bad press off the internet, identified integritydefenders.com, and asked Epstein’s office to provide a credit card to account manager Leslie Yueling.

This chain appears in three released files:

These are duplicate productions of the same underlying correspondence. They should not be counted as three separate transactions or three independent confirmations.

Epstein Personally Approved the Package

On February 8, an assistant asked Epstein whether she should sign him up for Integrity Defenders as requested. Epstein replied, “Yes.”

That short reply is significant because it establishes personal authorization rather than merely an unsolicited proposal circulating among staff. The approval appears in EFTA00928789.

The following day, an email from Integrity Defenders, Inc. stated that an invoice was attached and thanked the customer for the business. The invoice email appears in EFTA00420051.

Together, these records establish that:

An advanced package was proposed at approximately $2,449 plus tax.
Epstein personally approved enrollment.
Integrity Defenders issued an invoice email.

The pages reviewed do not contain a bank record, processed credit-card receipt, or settled invoice. They therefore establish authorization and invoicing, but do not independently prove the date or method of completed payment.

May 2012: Dissatisfaction and Replacement

By May 10, 2012, an Epstein adviser wrote that Integrity Defender was not showing enough progress. The adviser proposed deducting the company’s fee, identified in that message as $2,149, and said the firm had been recommended by “Reputation Management,” another company that reportedly could not take Epstein as a client.

The same message recommended Reputation Changer, described its proposed methods, and quoted a much larger price of $7,500 for the first month and $5,000 per month thereafter. The email and its continuation appear in:

Those two Bates pages form one continuing email, not two separate evaluations.

The source record contains two different Integrity Defenders price figures:

February 2012: Approximately $2,449 plus tax for the advanced package
May 2012: A reference to deducting a $2,149 fee

The reviewed documents do not reconcile the $300 difference. It may reflect a base price, tax treatment, package adjustment, discount, or a mistake in one of the emails. Without the full attached invoice or a payment ledger, the discrepancy should remain unresolved.

What Appears to Have Failed

The May correspondence does not provide a technical performance report from Integrity Defenders. It records the Epstein team’s judgment that the company was not showing enough progress.

Several limitations remain:

The released records do not identify the exact keywords assigned to Integrity Defenders.
They do not list the negative URLs the firm was expected to suppress.
They do not identify any website, blog, press release, advertisement, or social-media account created by Integrity Defenders for Epstein.
They do not show whether the company met any contractual benchmark.
They do not include a response from Integrity Defenders to the complaint.

The evidence therefore supports the conclusion that Epstein authorized the service and that his team soon considered it inadequate. It does not permit a reliable measurement of what the company actually produced.

Integrity Defenders Was Not Reputation Changer

The distinction between the two firms is essential.

Integrity Defenders entered the record in February 2012 with a comparatively modest advanced package. By May, Epstein’s adviser was recommending a switch to Reputation Changer, whose proposal called for a larger and more aggressive campaign involving articles, microsites, press releases, backlinks, hosted content, and monitoring across multiple search engines.

Later records document a much more developed Reputation Changer operation. That later work should not be retroactively attributed to Integrity Defenders without specific evidence.

The sequence supported by the reviewed records is:

Another reputation company reportedly declined to accept Epstein because of his background.
Integrity Defenders was proposed and approved in February 2012.
An invoice email followed.
Epstein’s team expressed dissatisfaction by May.
The team pursued Reputation Changer as a replacement.

Timeline

Date	Event	Evidence
2009	Integrity Defenders was founded in New Jersey, according to contemporary reporting.	TIME
March 27, 2010	A company release identified Eve McCormick as CEO and Barbara Assante as the public contact.	PR.com company release
April 19, 2011	TIME identified Alan Assante as president and described the firm’s search-suppression model.	TIME
March 30, 2011	A company release identified Michael D’Alessio as marketing director.	PR.com company release
January 12, 2012	A company release described planned pay-per-click and AdWords services for reputation clients.	PR.com company release
February 7, 2012	Epstein was asked to approve an advanced package quoted at approximately $2,449 plus tax.	EFTA00420258
February 8, 2012	Epstein personally replied “Yes” to the request to sign him up.	EFTA00928789
February 9, 2012	Integrity Defenders sent an email stating that an invoice was attached.	EFTA00420051
May 10, 2012	An adviser said the company was not showing enough progress, referred to a $2,149 fee, and recommended Reputation Changer.	EFTA02698102, EFTA02698103
June 18, 2015	Forbes again identified Alan Assante as president and reported the company’s tiered search-suppression prices.	Forbes
February 13, 2026	Bloomberg reported on Epstein’s broader reputation campaign and identified Integrity Defenders as one of the engaged firms.	Bloomberg

What the Evidence Establishes

Integrity Defenders was a real New Jersey reputation-management company operating before and during 2012.
The company publicly advertised methods intended to promote favorable results and suppress unwanted links.
Epstein’s team proposed purchasing its advanced package for approximately $2,449 plus tax.
Epstein personally authorized the signup.
Integrity Defenders sent an invoice email.
Leslie Yueling was identified as the vendor’s account manager in the transaction correspondence.
By May 2012, Epstein’s team believed the service was not showing enough progress.
The team then pursued Reputation Changer as a replacement.

What the Evidence Does Not Establish

It does not establish that Integrity Defenders or any identified employee participated in Epstein’s sexual abuse or trafficking.
It does not establish that Epstein owned, controlled, or invested in the company.
It does not establish that Alan Assante, Eve McCormick, or Michael D’Alessio personally handled Epstein’s account.
It does not establish what Leslie Yueling knew about Epstein beyond what was necessary to manage the account.
It does not identify every page or search result the firm attempted to influence.
It does not show that the firm edited Wikipedia for Epstein.
It does not establish that Integrity Defenders created the later Epstein microsites, blogs, or directory profiles associated with Reputation Changer.
It does not independently prove that the invoice was fully paid.
It does not reconcile the $2,449 February quote with the $2,149 May fee reference.

Ethical and Editorial Assessment

Online reputation management is not inherently illegal. Individuals and companies routinely use search optimization, public relations, and privacy services for lawful purposes.

The public-interest issue here is the subject and objective of the engagement. Epstein was not confronting a fabricated rumor. He had pleaded guilty in Florida in 2008 to felony solicitation of prostitution and felony procurement of a minor for prostitution, and he was a registered sex offender. The reputation campaign sought to alter how that established history appeared to people searching his name.

The released documents justify describing Integrity Defenders as a documented reputation-management vendor retained or commissioned by Epstein’s team. They do not justify describing its publicly identified leaders as members of Epstein’s trafficking organization or as participants in his abuse.

That distinction is central to an evidence-based account.

Current Status of the Domains

As of August 12, 2026, both integritydefender.com and integritydefenders.com remained registered. The singular domain displayed unrelated commercial material, while the plural domain resolved to a lander during this review.

Public registration records do not establish that the current registrants are the same company or people who operated the 2012 business. Current domain content should not be attributed to the historical Integrity Defenders organization without ownership evidence.

Researchers should use archived captures rather than assuming that a live historical domain remains under its original control:

Unresolved Questions

What did the attached February invoice contain?
Was the invoice paid, refunded, disputed, or credited?
Why do the February and May records give different fee figures?
Which search terms and negative pages were assigned to Integrity Defenders?
What work product, if any, did the company deliver?
Did Integrity Defenders create any still-identifiable domains, articles, profiles, advertisements, or backlinks for Epstein?
Who inside the company approved the Epstein engagement?
What did company personnel know about Epstein’s conviction and sex-offender status?
Did the company respond to the May complaint or dispute the claim of inadequate progress?
Are contracts, reports, dashboard records, billing statements, or correspondence preserved outside the released production?

Primary Evidence

EFTA00420258: February 7 proposal for the advanced package, account-manager information, and quoted price
EFTA00719708: Duplicate production of the February 7 correspondence
EFTA01848044: Another produced copy of the February 7 correspondence
EFTA00928789: Epstein’s February 8 approval
EFTA00420051: February 9 invoice email from Integrity Defenders, Inc.
EFTA02698102: May 10 complaint about insufficient progress and recommendation to replace the firm
EFTA02698103: Continuation of the May 10 email and Reputation Changer proposal details

Secondary and Company Sources

Company press releases are useful for documenting how the company described itself and the titles it assigned to personnel. They are not independent verification of the company’s performance claims.

Journalists and Media