Open test · updated 2026-09-24
Nobody has tested whether face-search removals actually work
Every service in this category advertises a number of databases it clears. None of them publishes what happened when they filed. Neither did we. This page is us doing the work in the open — every engine we can find, what its opt-out really demands, and the outcome, including the ones that fail.
Three of the ten cannot be left, and one is not a face index
This is the part a coverage count hides. A number like “50+ databases” or “850+ sites” counts entries on a list. It does not distinguish an engine you can opt out of in a day from one that has no consumer process in existence, and those are not the same product.
Corsight sells to governments and enterprises and says it acts as a processor rather than a controller. There is no consumer index to leave; a request has to go to whichever organisation is running its software, which you would first have to identify. Search4Faces and FindClone index VK and similar networks and publish no consumer opt-out we can find. For those two the only real lever is the source photographs.
ProFaceFinder is the sharpest example of a process that exists on paper and resists use. Its opt-out asks for the URLs of the results you want suppressed — which means finding your own results first, and users report that seeing them requires a paid search. Pay to learn what to ask us to remove.
There is a second way a count misleads, and Social Catfish is the clearest instance of it. It appears on at least one published list of facial-recognition databases. Its own opt-out page says it stores no images and can only stop an exact image from appearing in results — which is file matching, the thing Google reverse image search does. A face index finds other photographs of the same person, taken years apart, that it has never seen beside the one you gave it. Those are different capabilities and only one of them is the reason people are frightened. Counting the first as the second inflates a list without adding any protection.
Sourced from each engine’s own opt-out and privacy pages as of 2026-09-24. These processes change; where this page and an engine’s own page disagree, theirs is right, and we would like to know.
The record
| Engine | Consumer route | What it demands | Stated time | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PimEyes consumer index · in our service | Open | Two reference photos + government ID with the name visible | 2–6 weeks | Not filed yet |
| FaceCheck.ID consumer index · in our service | Open | Reference photos + ID matching the face, or a two-fingers-on-chin selfie | 2–4 weeks | Not filed yet |
| Lenso.ai consumer index · in our service | Open | One clear face photo. No ID. | under 24 hours | Not filed yet |
| ProFaceFinder consumer index | Open | Reference photo + proof of identity + URLs of the results to suppress | 24 business hours | Not filed yet |
| EyeMatch.AI consumer index | Open | Email form; verification process not disclosed | not stated | Not filed yet |
| Social Catfish people-search, not a face index | Open | State, first and last name, email. Images optional. | 15 days | Not filed yet |
| Clearview AI B2B / government · in our service | Conditional | A statutory privacy request — CCPA or GDPR/UK DPA | 45 days (statutory) | Not filed yet |
| Search4Faces consumer index | None | — | — | No consumer route |
| FindClone consumer index | None | — | — | No consumer route |
| Corsight B2B / government | None | A request to whichever organisation deploys it | — | No consumer route |
PimEyes — reCAPTCHA plus human ID review. Re-indexes, so a filing is a snapshot.
FaceCheck.ID — Accepts a selfie in place of an ID, which is the least invasive verification here.
Lenso.ai — The only engine here that publicly states it will not re-index a delisted face.
ProFaceFinder — Asks for the URLs of your own results. Users report needing a paid search to see them.
EyeMatch.AI — Publishes no verification standard or legal basis, so the shape is unknown until filed.
Social Catfish — Not a face index. Its own opt-out page says it stores no images and can only stop an exact image from appearing — that is file matching, not face matching.
Clearview AI — No general opt-out. Only California, EU and UK residents have an enforceable route.
Search4Faces — Indexes VK and similar. No consumer opt-out we can find. The lever is the source photos.
FindClone — VK-based, registration-gated. No consumer opt-out we can find.
Corsight — B2B only and acts as processor, not controller. There is no consumer index to leave.
Method
- Search each engine for one face and record what it currently returns, with screenshots.
- File that engine’s own opt-out, giving only what it asks for and nothing more.
- Record the date filed and whatever it replies, verbatim, including rejections.
- Re-search at 30 and 60 days. Reappearing counts as a failure, not a partial success.
- Publish every outcome, including the ones that make the service look worse.
The filings are on our own faces. Doing it for someone else means holding their photo and their government ID, and we are not collecting those to produce an article. One face is a small sample and we will not pretend otherwise — but it is a tested sample, which is more than any coverage number in this category currently offers.
Where this leaves our own service
We cover three engines, plus a Clearview request for the residents who have a legal route to one. On a count of databases we are the narrowest paid option we know of. At $19 a month we are also more expensive than at least one competitor charging roughly a third of that, so on price per engine we are the worst value in this category. Both of those are true and neither is hidden further down a page.
What we think is worth the difference is that the list is short because every entry on it is one we file by hand and have cleared, that the omissions are named, and that a person answers when a filing goes quiet. If the results below end up showing that a given engine cannot reliably be cleared, it comes off the list and out of the price.
FAQ
Frequently asked questions
Why publish this before you have results?
Because the engine list and the method are the parts that can be checked now, and publishing them first is what makes the results worth anything later. A methodology written after the numbers are known is not a methodology. The outcome column says "not filed yet" where nothing has been filed, and it will keep saying that until something has.
Whose face are you filing for?
Our own. Filing on behalf of someone else requires their photo and their government ID, and we are not going to collect those to produce a blog post. That does limit the test: one face, one set of results. It is stated here rather than hidden because a sample of one is still more than a coverage count nobody has tested.
How many engines does your paid service actually cover?
Three — PimEyes, FaceCheck.ID and Lenso.ai — plus a Clearview request for California, EU and UK residents, which is the only route Clearview offers anyone. That is fewer than some competitors advertise. The engines on this page marked as not in the service are ones we are testing and have not committed to.
Is this a comparison against other removal services?
No, and deliberately not yet. We would be a competitor grading competitors, which is worth very little. What this does is establish what is actually removable, engine by engine, with a method anyone can repeat. Any comparison worth reading has to come after that, and has to apply the same standard to us.
Can I just do this myself?
Yes, and the table is laid out so you can. Every opt-out link is the real one, and every requirement listed is what that engine asks for. Lenso.ai takes one photo and no ID and is usually done inside a day, so start there. Nothing we do is privileged access — we file the same forms you would.