If a directory links your name to a company you do not recognise, verify the identity and relationship before requesting a change. It may be a factual error, a namesake, an old appointment or an indirect connection presented ambiguously. Record the exact assertion and the entity identifier. A focused correction begins with evidence of the mismatch, not with a broad claim that every mention of your name is false.
Verify the entity and person concerned
Open the page and record the company identifier, legal name and country. Similar names and trading names can make different companies look like the same entity. A stable identifier is usually a more reliable comparison point than a familiar logo or spelling.
Then inspect the person information in context. Does the page identify a full name, a role, a period or another distinguishing detail? Do not assume that the result refers to you just because it appears for a search using your name. A namesake's accurate record can appear in the same results.
If the page clearly distinguishes the other person, the problem may be search confusion rather than source misattribution. If the page combines your identifying context with someone else's role, that is a different issue. Preserve the relevant passage so the recipient can investigate the actual presentation.
Fictional example: Alex searches a common name and finds a Belgian company appointment. The result alone does not establish that the directory has assigned the role to Alex personally. An additional profile linking that appointment to Alex's own business could create a more specific attribution question that needs checking.
Avoid collecting more information about the other person than necessary. Your initial task is to establish what the page claims and whether it attributes the company connection to you. Do not attempt to solve uncertainty by obtaining private documents or contacting unrelated family members.
Identify the nature of the association
A page can link a person as a current officer, former officer, shareholder reference, contact or connection through another entity. Read the label rather than converting every relationship into a direct appointment. If the label is unclear, ask what it means.
Check dates. A company you do not immediately recognise may have changed its name, or the page may refer to an earlier role. Do not state you never had a connection until you have compared the identifiers and relevant history. Your request should reflect the facts you can establish.
Separate false identity from inaccurate status. If the appointment is yours but is incorrectly shown as current, the former-director correction guide is more focused. If the connection is accurate but its publication concerns you, that is not the same as an identity error.
Document indirect associations carefully. A network diagram may connect companies through a shared role rather than claiming that you manage every company shown. The concern may be an explanatory label or misleading presentation. Screenshot the relevant legend and surrounding context alongside the disputed node or link.
Write the problem as a testable statement: “This page assigns role X in company Y to the profile identified as me.” Then specify what contradicts it. If the statement cannot yet be made, your next step is clarification rather than an unsupported correction demand.
Collect evidence without exposing a third party
Prepare a minimal file showing the page, your relevant identity context and the mismatch. You may be able to establish the issue using a company identifier and records of your actual role without attaching extensive identity material. Keep the evidence related to the claim.
The European Commission's rights overview identifies rectification as a route for inaccurate personal data. A factual request still needs to explain what is inaccurate; a legal citation alone does not establish that two people have been confused.
Use a private evidence index. For each item, state what it demonstrates and what it does not. A record showing your role in one company does not necessarily prove you never held a role elsewhere. Avoid presenting absence from one document as universal proof of a negative.
If the publisher asks for identity verification, check the request and official channel. Ask what distinction the additional information will establish. Do not send another person's documents or publish your own identification in a public comment to prove the error.
Keep original observations dated. If the page changes during the exchange, you may need the earlier context to explain why you raised the matter. A screenshot should include enough surroundings to preserve the meaning without unnecessarily reproducing unrelated personal information.
Prepare a factual correction request
Identify the precise URL, company and person profile. Quote the short disputed association and explain your understanding of the mismatch. Separate confirmed facts from uncertainty. “This appears to combine two people” is different from asserting that you know the site's technical matching process failed.
Ask for the specific attribution to be checked and corrected if inaccurate. Do not request deletion of a legitimate company record merely because its association with your profile may be wrong. The desired correction can concern the link while the source company information remains valid.
If the issue is unclear presentation, state how the page is read and ask what the label means. A publisher may clarify the relationship or identify the source. That response can help you determine whether the underlying record or the directory presentation needs further work.
Use the publisher's verified privacy or correction contact. If several directories repeat the same association, map the sources before sending identical requests everywhere. The original error may be upstream, but that is a hypothesis until the records support it.
Maintain a clear chronology and keep the complete reply. A provider reviewing the case later should see the actual claim and response, not just a summary saying “they refused to remove my name.” The difference matters when the recipient has asked for evidence or explained a relationship you had not recognised.
Where a company page and a person page disagree, identify both and explain the relationship you are asking the publisher to check. It may be possible for one to be corrected while the other still carries the wrong link. The request should not assume that changing a display name necessarily changes every association behind it.
You can suggest the factual outcome without specifying the publisher's technical repair. For example, ask that a role not be attributed to your identified profile if it belongs to someone else. Do not demand that an entire network feature be deleted unless that is genuinely the subject of the assessment. Keeping the request at the factual level lets the publisher investigate the mechanism while you retain a clear way to verify the result. After a reply, you can then open the same two pages and see whether the disputed attribution remains, rather than trying to judge an invisible database change.
Follow the correction and its copies
After a response, inspect the same profile, association and label. Verify that the disputed connection changed in the relevant place. A corrected name field is not enough if the wrong company link remains; a removed link may resolve the issue even though a namesake's separate record remains online.
Check connected pages only where they repeat the error. Record each publication separately. A search result pointing to a now-correct page is a different follow-up from another directory still containing the false attribution.
| Check | Observation to preserve |
|---|---|
| Person profile | Whether the disputed company remains attached |
| Company page | Whether the named role is still assigned incorrectly |
| Network display | Whether the contested connection or label changed |
| Search result | Query and destination observed afterwards |
If the publisher disputes your evidence, identify the specific factual question that remains. It may need better source documentation, a clearer distinction between namesakes or specialist review. Do not invent new claims to make the request stronger.
The purpose of the exercise is accurate attribution. A correction should not imply that another person's legitimate role is improper, nor that every result sharing your name must disappear. A precise record gives you a sound basis for direct follow-up or a bounded directory-assistance discussion, subject to the actual service available.
Related reading: Same name in a business directory: how to check a mistaken attribution; Correcting personal data on Companyweb: how to prepare your request.
