Skip to main content
Search
< All Topics
Print

Integrity Defenders

Updated
ByEpsteinWiki
Views18

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
  • Price and payment evidence: The February correspondence quoted approximately $2,449 plus tax. Invoice 20205, dated February 8, totals $2,449 and is stamped “PAID”; Lesley Groff also reported that she had paid. See EFTA00301933 and EFTA02175361.
  • 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 a vendor engagement that Epstein’s team judged inadequate before recommending Reputation Changer.

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 Integrity Defenders account manager named in the transaction correspondence and in a March 21, 2012 progress report. Her report describes work the firm said it had performed after approval; it is a vendor account, not an independently verified performance audit. See EFTA00660109.

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.

An email from Integrity Defenders, Inc., timestamped February 9, 2012 at 00:14 UTC, said an invoice was attached. The attachment filename includes invoice number 20205. See EFTA00420051. The invoice preserved as EFTA00301933 is numbered 20205, dated February 8, made out to Jeffrey Epstein, and stamped “PAID.” It lists a “Personal Advanced Online Reputation Package – 2 Pages” and a total of $2,449.

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, and a matching-number invoice is preserved with a $2,449 total and a “PAID” stamp.

The correspondence also records Lesley Groff saying on February 8 that she had spoken with Leslie and paid. See EFTA02175361. The paid-stamped invoice and Groff’s message support payment, not merely authorization. They are not a bank statement or a processed-card record and do not establish the complete payment trail.

What Integrity Defenders Said It Would Do

Yueling’s February 7 pitch described building sites, links and favorable content to displace negative results. She requested access to an existing Epstein website, proposed reusing foundation material and emphasizing other people with the same name, and estimated six months to a year for the effort. The covering exchange identified $2,449 as a one-time fee. These are the vendor’s proposed methods, not independently validated claims about how search engines work. See EFTA00719710.

March 2012: The Vendor’s Progress Report

On March 21, Yueling reported adding content to three supplied domains, creating dozens of profile sites, distributing supplied press releases to more than 45 PR sites, and building backlinks. She said the firm would add two further websites and continued to estimate six months to a year to clear negative information from the first results page. See EFTA00660109.

This report establishes what the vendor claimed to have done. It does not provide a complete inventory of URLs or preserved search-result comparisons that independently demonstrate the claimed results.

A February 27 update also said Integrity Defenders would work on Epstein’s Wikipedia page early that week. That is evidence of a planned task, not proof that the company made a particular edit or controlled a particular Wikipedia account. See EFTA00719001.

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 February 8 invoice records $2,449, while the May 10 message refers to $2,149. The records reviewed do not explain the $300 difference or establish that a deduction, credit or refund occurred. The invoice resolves the billed amount, not the reason for the inconsistent later figure.

What Appears to Have Failed

The May correspondence records Epstein’s team’s judgment that the company was not showing enough progress. Read alongside Yueling’s March report, it shows a gap between the vendor’s account of its work and the client’s satisfaction—not an independent measurement of search performance.

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.
  • Yueling’s report describes categories and quantities of work, but it does not identify every site, profile, release or backlink in a complete deliverable list.
  • 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 supports an approved, invoiced and reportedly paid engagement, a vendor account of work performed, and the client’s later dissatisfaction. It does not independently verify the full set of deliverables or their effect on search rankings.

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:

  1. Another reputation company reportedly declined to accept Epstein because of his background.
  2. Integrity Defenders was proposed and approved in February 2012.
  3. An invoice email followed; a paid-stamped invoice and Groff’s payment report are preserved.
  4. Epstein’s team expressed dissatisfaction by May.
  5. The team pursued Reputation Changer as a replacement.

Timeline

DateEventEvidence
2009Integrity Defenders was founded in New Jersey, according to contemporary reporting.TIME
March 27, 2010A company release identified Eve McCormick as CEO and Barbara Assante as the public contact.PR.com company release
March 30, 2011A company release identified Michael D’Alessio as marketing director.PR.com company release
April 19, 2011TIME identified Alan Assante as president and described the firm’s search-suppression model.TIME
January 12, 2012A company release described planned pay-per-click and AdWords services for reputation clients.PR.com company release
February 7, 2012Epstein was asked to approve an advanced package quoted at approximately $2,449 plus tax.EFTA00420258
February 8, 2012Epstein personally replied “Yes” to the request to sign him up.EFTA00928789
February 8, 2012Invoice 20205 totals $2,449 and bears a “PAID” stamp; Groff reported that she had paid.EFTA00301933, EFTA02175361
February 9, 2012 (UTC)Integrity Defenders sent an email stating that invoice 20205 was attached.EFTA00420051
March 21, 2012Yueling sent a progress report describing the firm’s claimed work.EFTA00660109
May 10, 2012An adviser said the company was not showing enough progress, referred to a $2,149 fee, and recommended Reputation Changer.EFTA02698102, EFTA02698103
June 18, 2015Forbes again identified Alan Assante as president and reported the company’s tiered search-suppression prices.Forbes
February 13, 2026Bloomberg 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; invoice 20205 survives with a $2,449 total and a “PAID” stamp, and Groff reported payment.
  • 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.
  • The February 27 message anticipates Wikipedia work; it does not establish who made any particular edit or identify a company-controlled account.
  • It does not establish that Integrity Defenders created the later Epstein microsites, blogs, or directory profiles associated with Reputation Changer.
  • It does not supply a bank or processed-card record that reconstructs the complete payment trail.
  • 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

The August 12, 2026 review recorded both integritydefender.com and integritydefenders.com as registered, with unrelated commercial material on the singular domain and a lander on the plural domain. Registry records checked on October 29, 2026 still showed both domains registered. This later registration check does not verify the domains’ current content or historical ownership.

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 underlying bank or card records document the payment reported by Groff and marked on invoice 20205?
  • Was any part of the invoiced payment later 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?
  • Which surviving files, sites or reports corroborate the work described in Yueling’s March 21 progress report?
  • 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: Invoice email timestamped February 9 (UTC), identifying attachment invoice 20205
  • EFTA00301933: February 8 invoice 20205, total $2,449, stamped “PAID”
  • EFTA02175361: Thread preserving Groff’s February 8 report that she had paid
  • EFTA00719710: February 7 pitch and one-time-fee explanation
  • EFTA00660109: March 21 vendor progress report
  • EFTA00719001: February 27 message anticipating Wikipedia work
  • EFTA02698102: May 10 complaint about insufficient progress and recommendation to replace the firm
  • EFTA02698102, page 2 (Bates 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.

Related Wiki Articles

Posted
ByEpsteinWiki
Tags:
Previous Ian Osborne
Next James Patterson
Table of Contents