Hosts that genuinely ignore a complaint — the current list, updated as they die

There's a good thread on this board where someone logged every complaint he received and what each host did. This is not that. This is the roll-up: one row per provider, what they claim, what's actually been reported here, and when it was last confirmed by someone who wasn't the marketing page.

Rules. A row needs a date and a reporter. "I heard they're solid" is not a row. If a provider goes bad, I'd rather mark it dead than delete it, because the death is the useful information.

Host	Jurisdiction	From	Claimed policy	Last confirmed by a member
FlokiNET	IS / FI / RO	€5.50	Routine DMCA ignored, court order in host country complied with	2025-03, complaint landed, box stayed up
PRQ	Sweden	€30	Twenty years of not folding	2025-01, no complaint to test
AbeloHost	Netherlands	€15 offshore tier	Offshore tier ignores, standard tier forwards	2024-09, wrong-tier story
BPW	Seychelles + 5 DCs	$80	DMCA-ignored, per-location exclusions	2025-02, ticket unanswered
BPServ	NL / RU / MY / UA / MD / RO	$65	DMCA-ignored, adult/casino/pharma welcome	2024-09, suspended after one abuse mail
Virtualine	"Multiple"	€4	No-KYC, no published abuse policy	2025-04, no complaint to test
BingLoft	India / Germany	$46.99	None published	never

Two of those rows are already uncomfortable. BPServ markets ignore-everything and there's a first-hand suspension on this board. BingLoft advertises "offshore dedicated" and has no reachable policy at all, which I've put in the table precisely so nobody has to find out twice.

Post corrections with dates.

Useful. The column you're missing is what they do about upstream — several of these resell, and the reseller's policy is irrelevant if the upstream folds.

Agreed and I don't know how to source it. Adding the column blank is worse than not having it.

"Ignores a complaint" is four behaviours and the table treats it as one. This is the thing that makes every list like this misleading over time.

1. Doesn't action it and doesn't tell you. You never learn a complaint arrived.
2. Doesn't action it and forwards it to you. Most of the good ones.
3. Actions it quietly — nulls the IP, tells you afterwards, calls it a network event.
4. Actions it and terminates.

The gap between 1 and 2 matters more than any jurisdiction on that chart. A host in category 1 looks perfect right up until the day it doesn't, because you have no signal at all, and the first thing you learn is that the box is gone. A host in category 2 gives you weeks of warning every single time.

I'd sort your table by that before I sorted it by anything else.

That's a better axis than the one I built it on. Next version has a behaviour column.

Prices on that chart are the giveaway if anyone's reading it for the first time. Five fifty and eighty dollars are not the same product, and they're not the same product in the direction people assume — the eighty is not eighty because it ignores harder, it's eighty because they expect to lose the IP range and price the churn in.

FlokiNET row i can confirm again, March and also April. Two notice, both from US company, both automatic. Box never touch, they forward me copy and say is for information only.

Romania location. Also i must say support answer in 6 hour every time which for this price is not normal.

Same notices or different complainants? Two from the same bot is one data point.

Different company, different template. So two.

Sorry, basic question — if the host forwards me the complaint, am I supposed to do anything with it? Or is the point that I don't?

Depends what you're running, but the general answer is: read it, don't reply to it, and keep it.

Don't reply because a reply confirms a working contact and turns an automated process into a human one with your address in it. Keep it because if this ever escalates, the pattern of what was sent and when is the only record you'll have, and the host isn't obliged to keep theirs.

One structural note on the middle three rows, because the tier confusion in this market is not accidental and it costs people real money.

AbeloHost, BPServ and BPW all sell a product line where the bulletproof property is attached to a specific plan rather than to the company. That's an entirely legitimate way to run a business — the offshore tier costs more because the abuse handling costs them more — but it means the sentence "AbeloHost ignores DMCA" is not true or false, it's incomplete.

What follows from that:

1. The plan you buy is the policy you get. Read the plan page, not the company page.
2. A migration between plans at the same host is a policy change, and nobody sends you an email saying so.
3. When someone posts "host X folded on me", the first question is always which tier, and it's almost never in the post.

Roughly half the "the bulletproof host suspended me" stories I've read on this board over the years resolve to somebody being on the wrong plan. Not all of them. About half.

Worth a footnote on the table rather than a new column.

Footnoted.

bookmarking this

Also worth stating: none of these protect the domain, and the domain is faster to kill than the box.