Policies: Contact
Case Studies
From Steve: I saw Louis Rossmann’s recent video in advance and I greatly appreciate his recommendations – I have let negative comments and criticisms shove me into a box that I no longer feel the need to defend and no longer feel familiar with. For GN, we are excited to continue sticking to just hardware and news, as we discussed earlier this week. We’ve been on a roll with what I love the most, which is testing. For GNCA, I’m excited for continuing investigations and coverage in a way that I feel is right. I have become paralyzed from paying attention to the standards of others and the specifics of labels. I have decided it is best to stop paying attention to those and no longer care to please those people. Going forward, we no longer care and we will produce our coverage in our way, to our standard, and in the way we think is right. I’ll be continuing to investigate companies and expose practices we feel are bad, and in particular, practices which are damaging to consumers.
For GN, we have a ton of hardware reviews and benchmarks on the way. For GNCA, we have some huge investigations in the works into new scams, some of which have affected our own staff. We are excited for these moves forward. Thank you.
1/26/2025 update: The below is deprecated, but left online.
No Contact
-
Criteria Met:
Possibility of Legal Interventions
Motive & Opportunity to Cover-up, Mislead, or Misrepresent
History of Failure to Resolve Issues
Public Record or Already Public Information
Response to Existing Content
Additional Info: Note that we did publicly tweet at The Verge criticizing their actions prior to running the video; however, public call-outs are not “contact” (because they’re public call-outs).
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbH17HMBusc
-
Criteria Met:
Motive & Opportunity to Cover-up, Mislead, or Misrepresent
History of Failure to Resolve Issues, Bad Faith, or Unprofessionalism
Provable / Objective Fault
Additional Info: We did not contact Newegg in a non-public fashion in this piece. In the first piece, we publicly blasted Newegg on Twitter as the first entry (after anonymously contacting customer support — which was part of the review as a consumer) and then published our video. Newegg actually replied to our tweet and asked us to talk. We told them: “We can talk after our video goes up. I'm not a big fan of disingenuous attempts to fix an issue after it's revealed that the mistreated customer has a following.” We ran the video without their comment because it had become a true customer service investigation — normal customers don’t get PR channels, so we refused those channels and also we publicly exposed them before they even attempted them. It wasn’t until we visited them that Newegg had a real chance to comment (see: “Contact” to the right).
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fnXsmXzphI
-
Criteria Met:
History of Failure to Resolve Issues, Bad Faith, or Unprofessionalism
Provable / Objective Fault
Additional Info: Although we sought NZXT’s comment on initial issues (see other column), we stopped seeking comment in follow-ups and additional investigation of the same issue (such as this one).
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SY4mBkB3CDw
-
Criteria Met:
Subject Comment Available
Response to Existing Content
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tu7pxJXBBn8
-
Criteria Met:
Immediate / Time Sensitive Risk to the Consumer
Provable / Objective Fault
Additional Info: Our first story (in the “Mix” column) involved outreach from Intel and no contact to Principled Technologies. In that story, we stated that we’d be driving over to their offices as that video went live. While possible they had about 10 minutes heads-up if they saw that video, we did not contact before the content, because they were the content.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzshhrIj2EY
-
Criteria Met:
Provable / Objective Fault
Immediate / Time Sensitive Risk to the Consumer (failing devices/overheating CPUs)
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HC1kzO_gIp4
-
Criteria Met:
Response to Existing Content
Subject Comment Available (prior public comment)
Provable / Objective Fault
Already Public Information
Motive & Opportunity to Mislead, especially based on prior public comments about the issue, e.g. the WAN Show reply on Billet
History of Failure to Resolve Issues or Unprofessionalism in prior Communications (we previously had non-public contact with the organization about similar matters that were not resolved satisfactorily or wherein we sometimes were the recipients of aggressive messaging pertaining to review topics).
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGW3TPytTjc
-
Criteria Met:
Response to Existing Content
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skCmOWfesrs
-
Criteria Met:
Already Public Information
Provable / Objective Fault (we had video evidence)
Response to Existing Content
Additional Info: This story involved information that Intel presented a CPU as “5 GHz” while operating a chiller under a table at its announcement event, resulting in a misleading presentation. Intel reached-out after our video, but we did not seek comment before.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRH0-QwhvVQ
Mix
-
Criteria Met:
Responses to Existing Content
Potential for Witness or Source Intimidation
Possibility of Legal Interventions
Additional Info: This was a mix of contact and no contact. For our first installment in the Artesian Builds series, we contacted them for specific comments initially as we had unsubstantiated allegations from people claiming to be former employees. The claims related to solvency (rumors of impending bankruptcy) and legal action (rumors of active lawsuits), among others. As both bankruptcy and legal action will all become Public Record at some point, there is no opportunity to cover-up the alleged existence of either. However, we did not inform the Subject of all of our information, including more damning (and evidence-backed) information about misuse of company funds. After a reply to our request took an inappropriate turn we perceived as an attempt to buy favorable coverage, we retracted our offer of in-person meeting and focused instead on giving (soon-to-be) former employees the spotlight they deserved.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9NzY8TDCAY -
Criteria Met:
History of Failure to Resolve Issues, Bad Faith, or Unprofessionalism
Immediate / Time Sensitive Risk to the Consumer
Possibility of Legal Interventions
Motive & Opportunity to Cover-Up, Mislead, or Misrepresent
Additional Info: For one single aspect of this investigation, we contacted Artesian’s lawyer because a former employee, presenting to GN proof of non-payment for work provided, was told by Artesian’s CEO to contact the company’s attorney — so we did on behalf of the employee.
For the vast majority of the investigation, we did not contact the subject. We entered the old warehouse unannounced (with a broker) to investigate hearsay (claims from former employees) of abandoned materials, customer systems, and unfulfilled and unrefunded orders. We additionally used private communications we obtained from former employees showing company owner responses to the situation, corroborated across 12 sources. Claims included impending, but not filed, bankruptcy while holding on to thousands of dollars worth of customer orders. GN also became aware of the possibility of being sued by the subject.Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2xMi7inB28
-
Criteria Met:
Motive & Opportunity to Cover-up, Mislead, or Misrepresent
History of Failure to Resolve Issues, Bad Faith, or Unprofessionalism
Additional Info: On July 23, 2020, we initially contacted the subject for comment as some claims were hearsay without supporting information, evidence, or prior actions. Those claims were relating to MSI stalling media to delay critical commentary. However, when MSI responded, it attempted to schedule the discussion on August 4 — two weeks after the event. This was in conjunction with existing communications indicative of ethical concerns. As this two-week delay aligned with the prior hearsay about intentional delays to slow PR damage, we collected our necessary evidence and no longer needed comment.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6BXwCJtaZE
-
Subject #1 (Principled Technologies)
Criteria Met:Motive & Opportunity to Mislead
Response to Existing Content
Provable / Objective Fault
Already Public Information (called-out on social media and other publications first)
Subject #2 (Intel)
Actively provided content to media known to be working on this story prior to publication.
Additional Info: This story involved two subjects: Intel and Principled Technologies. We actually did not contact either, had the entire video rendered and ready, and then the story became a large public controversy separate of us (from reddit posts). Intel realized media was working on this topic and began actively calling media. Intel’s statement was shoved into the beginning of the finished video after this.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1mJMI_uaa8
-
Criteria Met:
Motive & Opportunity to Cover-up, Mislead, or Misrepresent
Subject Comment Available
History of Failure to Resolve Issues, Bad Faith, or Unprofessionalism
Immediate / Time Sensitive Risk to the Consumer
Provable / Objective Fault
Additional Info: For this piece, we contacted ASUS to ask for comment on an unclear public statement that they made (specifically, we wanted to know what ASUS meant when it said “any intentional manipulation of these settings can damage the processor”). We had a question of meaning. We did not inform ASUS of our findings prior to publishing or seek their input on them.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiTngvvD5dI
Contact
-
Background Info: We made firm and immediate contact with TechPowerUp regarding use of our company’s name, logo, and our host’s likeness in purely speculative but damaging and erroneous content based on a reddit post erroneously claiming undisclosed product placement. We followed-up with a video expressing our concerns after TPU apologized to us for its actions and corrected the content.
We found that this situation did not meet our criteria. We chose to initiate contact for some of the following reasons:
As this issue primarily and most immediately affected us instead of consumers (although indirectly affected consumers), we first made contact to demand immediate retractions and changes of what we believed to be defamatory content.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pv3PVLPN-NM
-
We found that this situation did not meet our criteria. We chose to initiate contact for some of the following reasons:
There was already active US Government awareness via filed Consumer Product Safety Commission reports, including documentation
The matter was already public for some time prior to our arrival on the topic
There was no opportunity for a cover-up because the issue was known
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjUscSRLwks
-
We found that this situation did not meet our criteria. We chose to initiate contact for some of the following reasons:
The unit was a pre-launch sample from the manufacturer, meaning it was possible that its issues were related to being pre-production rather than being representative of retail.
There was no opportunity to cover-up or mislead, as we already had the unit and we knew a retail unit was already on the way.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4eazJIqRHg
-
Background Info: We obtained an Intel Arc A380 from a Chinese pre-built seller ahead of official launch. During the process of working on it, Intel more officially launched the product, but only in China.
We found that this situation did not meet our criteria. We chose to initiate contact for some of the following reasons:
We reached-out to Intel to ensure we had the correct drivers so that our data would be as accurate as possible, despite being a technically not-US product.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=La-dcK4h4ZU
-
Background Info: For this content, previous entries to this series had a mix of no contact, mixed contact, and contact. This particular installment involved contact: We gave Newegg about a 1-week heads-up that we would be showing up at their door to talk. This is unlike Principled Technologies, which had no notice we were showing up.
We found that this situation did not meet our criteria. We chose to initiate contact for some of the following reasons:
Newegg was given notice as the issue was already publicly and fully investigated by our team, and all that remained was to get public commitments for resolution.
Previous attempts to mislead were exposed in the first two rounds of investigation, ensuring no further opportunity to cover-up.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1R4wbuXFII
Definition
The page will frequently make reference to the phrase contact (“reaching out”). For purposes of ensuring clear communications with the audience, we define “contact” as follows: The non-public request for comment, statement, or background information from the primary subject of the content piece pertaining to a developing story that GN is covering or thinking of covering prior to a public criticism, thus alerting them to the story. Note that “non-public” just means “in advance of publishing.” In other words, if we privately and in advance of publishing notify a company of a content piece and seek statement, that statement will inherently become public (it will not remain private); however, the initial outreach is in advance of publishing. That is our definition of “contact” for purposes of this page and policy.
These topics will include conditions under which we will contact and won’t contact and to whom these policies apply. Although we have operated by most of these guidelines for many years, we wanted to formalize them in public writing to grant insight to our choices. This also provides us an internal roadmap to follow as we make these choices. With these policies now written and formalized, going forward, these will be the only guidelines we follow for the process of contacting entities (replacing all prior communications). If at any point these policies significantly change, we will update the page and/or publish a change notice alongside the change.
Equal Treatment
These policies apply to all categories of entity we may cover, including, but not limited to:
Manufacturers, e.g. computer hardware companies that make products for sale on the market
Retailers, distributors, wholesalers, and suppliers operating within coverage categories relevant to the story
Factories operating within coverage categories relevant to the story
Social media or ad agencies operating within coverage categories relevant to the story
Press, Media, and Content Creators with a wide influence and reach operating within coverage categories relevant to the story
Our policies below, both for when we do and when we don’t contact entities, apply to all entities within the above categories. We treat all above entities with the same guidelines laid-out below out of fairness to all entities.
Our Criteria
Given the nature of publishing a critical content piece, and considering that every subject, video, investigation, and circumstance is completely different, our decision to contact vs. not contact is situational. If any one of the criteria below is met, we may choose not to contact entities in advance to ensure that the truth of the situation is brought to light, and that our viewers are provided with the unfiltered evidence we have uncovered.
-
In some situations, contacting entities in advance provides a clear opportunity for a subject to “fix” the issues that we wish to expose in an attempt to make the story go away. This can include backpedaling specific instances of problems when they are indicative of a wider-spread issue, hiding evidence, releasing a misleading public statement first to get ahead of the controversy, or any other method of twisting the facts to the entity’s benefit. To meet this criteria, we must feel like there is both motive (a reason / benefit to take such an action), and opportunity (the ability for them to take such an action).
1 - Example of Criteria Being Met: A company is selling products to consumers, but has misleading language that implies the funds go to charity, when really the funds are going to another company they own. We’ve found the link between the companies, have corroborating evidence of intent, and the misleading language is live on their website; however, if we contact them to inform them we are about to expose their scam, they have both a reason and the chance to change the language from their website, post an update, and state it was a misunderstanding that they were simply unaware of. This twists the narrative, and makes it difficult to expose anything, as the evidence is now historical and they have seemingly “fixed” the “misunderstanding,” and appear to have “done the right thing.”
2 - Example of Criteria Being Met: A prominent software company is rumored to have a critical security vulnerability in their widely-used application, potentially compromising millions of users' data. Our anonymous source has informed us that the company refused to take action within a disclosure period. Our investigations have unearthed internal communications within the company that suggests they were aware of the vulnerability months before it came to public attention, but actively chose not to act on it. If we were to contact them about our findings before publishing, they would have both the motive and the opportunity to quickly patch the flaw, destroy or hide the internal communications that suggest intentional inaction, and then release a public statement claiming they just discovered and swiftly addressed the vulnerability. By doing so, they'd craft an appearance of proactiveness and responsible behavior, thus sidelining the actual core issue: their initial negligent inaction despite being aware of the threat. This would not only hinder the impact of our exposé but would also fail to hold them accountable for their earlier negligence, which may be impacting other products.
3 - Example of Criteria Not Being Met: A company’s employee commits an action that makes the company look very bad. They fired the employee upon finding out, and have publicly acknowledged the incident, but have not taken steps to prevent the issue in the future. In this situation, we may determine there is little to no motive or opportunity, as the primary incident has already been exposed, and the company took corrective action in terminating the employee. There is not much benefit, and little opportunity, to try and cover anything up at this stage.
4 - Example of Criteria Not Being Met: A top-tier liquid cooler manufacturer releases a new product that, despite its hype, gets clogged due to a chemical reaction. Initial posts on social media from customers first bring this to light. The manufacturer acknowledges the issue, offers repairs or refunds to unsatisfied customers, and cites production challenges as the cause, but doesn't provide clarity on future improvement plans. In this case, the primary concern has already been brought to light and the company has taken steps by acknowledging and offering solutions. The opportunity to conceal or downplay the issue is limited, and there's little advantage in them attempting to further manipulate background information since the facts are already widespread.
-
If there already exists a statement, comment, or discussion on the matter from the Subject, either publicly or privately if we are able to locate their internal messages, these comments can serve as their stance or viewpoint on the issue. This original comment is sufficient, and asking for a new comment under the looming threat of a content piece provides motive and opportunity (as outlined above) for the subject to change their statement for better public perception.
Example: Consumers are upset at a company’s actions, and the company dismisses the seriousness of these concerns or denies them on Twitter or via obtained or leaked internal email exchanges.
-
If GN’s content piece is a response to the content of another Subject, then there is no need to contact the entity. This can include product reviews, disagreements on a company’s public stance, flawed and inaccurate PC building advice, etc.
Example: A Media or Press Publication runs a public story entitled “Just Buy It” and writes an opinion of a product which GamersNexus disagrees with. GamersNexus may comment, satirize, subjectively opine on, or factually debunk that story without seeking comment, as it is a response to the original story itself.
Example: A Media or Press Publication runs a guide called “How we built a $2000 gaming PC.” In the guide, the Publication states this: “All you have to do is take the power supply and make sure you align it with the case’s rubber insulating pads so the power supply doesn't short-circuit and come into contact with the rest of the system.” There is no need to contact because GN is responding to existing content that is actively spreading misinformation GN believes to be harmful to novice PC builders.
-
If the entity has a documented history of neglecting to address problems, showing insincerity, unprofessionalism, or acting maliciously or in bad faith when confronted with criticisms or evidence of wrongdoing.
Example: A graphics card manufacturer has a known issue that causes overheating. Despite numerous customer complaints and promises of resolution, they continue to produce and sell the faulty model.
Example #2: A major electronics brand had been previously caught using subpar materials in their headphones, leading to rapid wear and tear. When initially approached for a comment on the matter, they not only denied the allegations but also launched a targeted PR campaign discrediting the media outlet, without addressing or rectifying the issue. Now, the same brand is under scrutiny for misleading battery life claims on their new line of wireless earbuds.
-
If the evidence against the subject is definitive and factual to the extent that their input or denial won’t alter the verifiable truth.
Example: Independent lab tests confirm that a popular laptop chassis has improper grounding that can cause a painful shock when the user touches metal parts of the exterior chassis. The data is objective, clear, and irrefutable.
-
When waiting for a response could jeopardize consumers' well-being, safety, or financial stability due to the immediate risks posed by the product or service in question.
Example: A popular antivirus software used by millions has been discovered and confirmed to have a flaw that instantly allows remote hackers to access personal files and sensitive information on users' computers. Due to the severity and immediacy of the threat, and because delays further increase the risk of consumers' data being compromised, it becomes imperative to inform the public without waiting for a statement or response from the software company.
-
If there's a possibility that contact could result in witnesses or sources being intimidated, threatened, or silenced, then it's best to avoid doing so.
Example: Insiders at a laptop manufacturing plant reveal poor working conditions, including photo evidence. Alerting the manufacturer ahead of the story might lead to these whistleblowers being identified and potentially retaliated against.
-
In cases where there's a significant chance that contacting might lead to legal actions (like injunctions) that could prevent the story from being published in a timely fashion or lead to legal complications.
Example: A software company has a history of issuing injunctions against media outlets that report on their software vulnerabilities. Giving them advance notice might lead to another such legal blockade preventing publication within a timely fashion.
-
If the information is part of the public record (such as court documents, regulatory filings, etc.)
Example: A VR headset manufacturer’s financial troubles are detailed in recent regulatory filings. This information, already being public, doesn't necessitate contacting for additional comments.
-
In cases where there's a risk of physical danger to our team, sources, or others involved if the subject becomes aware of the impending report.
Example: Our team discovers that a prominent factory overseas employs workers under severe conditions, including physical disciplinary action against employees. Given the oppressive environment and the company's demonstrated willingness to resort to extreme measures, revealing our investigation prematurely poses a threat to our embedded informants and local collaborators who helped us gather this information.