In our previous article in 2013, we explored in the first “Digital Ambulance Chasers” study how early opportunists emerged in the digital world to exploit technical loopholes, policy gaps, and user missteps—from DMCA scammers to reputation management firms. These individuals and entities—dubbed “digital ambulance chasers”—profit not by building or creating, but by circling digital misfortune like vultures.
They profit not by building or creating, but by circling digital misfortune like vultures
In this follow-up, we examine a new set of emerging behaviours and monetised schemes that go beyond the obvious. These are not mere scams or overtly criminal actions, but grey-zone tactics—often legally permissible, occasionally sanctioned, and always profitable. Together, they reflect the maturation of an informal industry built not on innovation, but on extraction.
App Store Name Squatting
The Race to Register Before You Launch
Just as domain names became hotly contested real estate in the early days of the web, the names of mobile applications are now being claimed and hoarded. Individuals and groups identify potential trends or copycat known brands, pre-registering app names on platforms like the Apple App Store or Google Play.
In some cases, these names are linked to low-effort apps with minimal functionality, designed to generate ad revenue or harvest user data. In others, the name is simply held and offered for sale to the rightful or intended owner. This tactic mirrors domain squatting but with a more immediate business impact: developers can be forced into lengthy legal disputes or expensive buy-backs simply to preserve their branding.
Early App Store policies allowed for this kind of name hoarding. While Apple eventually cracked down on the practice—requiring uploaded binaries to maintain name claims—the enforcement remains inconsistent.
Influencer Dispute Monetisation
Turning Online Conflict Into Commercial Strategy
As digital personalities wield increasing social and commercial influence, interpersonal conflicts between them have become more than drama—they’re monetisable events. Agencies and consultants now offer dispute management services tailored specifically to influencers and content creators. These range from copyright strike services to the orchestration of PR battles designed to boost engagement.
A YouTube feud or a Twitter spat was a reputational risk, it is now a business opportunity
Where once a YouTube feud or a Twitter spat was a reputational risk, it is now a business opportunity. Some parties even use legal channels—such as takedown notices or brand defamation claims—as a first step in content strategy.
Class actions and dispute PR have become structured tools in influencer marketing. The broader academic framing is covered in the esteemed German Law Journal, where the “influencer republic” dynamic is detailed. Regulatory attention has also increased, as shown in this analysis.
Data Breach Notification Consultants
Crisis Management or Cash Grab?
For companies that suffer a data breach, the regulatory and reputational fallout is immediate and severe. In this vulnerable window, consultants emerge offering assistance with breach notifications, media communications, and regulatory filings.
While many of these firms provide legitimate crisis response services, others exploit the urgency of the situation to overcharge or upsell unnecessary cybersecurity products. Their tactics often rely on fear: exaggerated interpretations of legal exposure, or veiled threats of further reputational damage if a contract is not signed quickly.
There are many cases where consultants delay disclosure to reduce client liability. Legal observers warn of pressure sales and overreach. An example these firms often act as both emergency responders and sales arms.
Terms of Service Enforcement-as-a-Service
Private Policing with a Paywall
Several online services now offer automated monitoring and enforcement of platform terms—such as detecting fake reviews, brand misuse, or intellectual property violations. These services are marketed as compliance tools but can easily turn into forms of coercion.
They operate much like private enforcement arms—scanning, reporting, and escalating issues unless payment is rendered to ‘clean up’ infractions
In some cases, these firms contact businesses they believe are in technical violation of a platform’s terms and offer “resolution services” in exchange for a monthly fee. They operate much like private enforcement arms—scanning, reporting, and escalating issues unless payment is rendered to “clean up” infractions.
This dynamic raises ethical and legal questions about due process, as enforcement actions traditionally governed by platforms or regulators become outsourced and monetised by third parties.
A New Class of Middlemen
What emerges across these practices is a clear pattern: a growing class of digital intermediaries who position themselves not to solve problems, but to own them. From squatting on names to profiting from influencer disputes, they offer assistance with one hand while subtly charging for air with the other.
In this economy, the most valuable skill is not creation—but opportunistic timing
The internet, once lauded as a decentralised meritocracy, has now matured into a layered economy where visibility, access, and even compliance can be bought, sold, or blocked. And as long as regulatory gaps and digital uncertainty persist, so too will those who thrive in their shadow.
If the first wave of digital ambulance chasers profited from technical ignorance, the next wave profits from systemic complexity. In this economy, the most valuable skill is not creation—but opportunistic timing.
