Check the person behind a social profile

That an account belongs to a real person with a genuine history, and what else links to them.

A check returns four things: the linked accounts across 28 networks, whether the profiles are consistent with each other on name and photo, the public employment history, and any fake-profile signals.

The underlying principle is simple. A real person leaves a footprint accumulated over years, across platforms, with the small inconsistencies that come from real life. A synthetic identity usually does not have one, because it has to be built on demand.

All three, and the choice depends on what you already hold.

Phone and email lookups find the accounts registered to that contact point, which is useful when a customer has given you a number and you want to know whose it is.

A URL lookup starts from a profile you already have and expands outward to linked accounts, which suits the case where someone has told you who they are and you want to test whether the rest of their footprint agrees.

All three return the same structure, so the workflow does not change depending on the starting point.

Three, and they are read together, not individually:

• Age — accounts created recently, particularly several at once
• Activity — profiles that exist but show little genuine use
• Overlap — the degree to which the accounts corroborate each other, or fail to

No linked accounts at all, or a set of accounts all created last month, is worth escalating before a relationship starts.

None of these is conclusive on its own. Plenty of legitimate people maintain a minimal online presence, and a thin footprint is a reason to look more closely, not a reason to decline.

Each result carries a confidence grade based on how many independent signals agree: name, photo, location and registration data.

Low-confidence matches are flagged as such, not hidden. That is a deliberate choice: filtering them out would produce a cleaner-looking result and would quietly misrepresent it as complete.

The distinction is particularly important for common names. A name-only match across 28 networks returns a great many people, and treating that volume as a finding about your subject would be actively misleading.

28 networks, covering the major social, professional and messaging platforms, drawing on more than 980 million social and employment records.

Coverage is strongest where profiles are public by default, and it is worth being direct about the limit that implies. Someone who keeps their accounts private, or who mainly uses platforms built around private messaging, will return a thinner result.

That is a limitation of the check, not a finding about the person.

The data comes from publicly available profiles and licensed sources, used for verification purposes permitted under the Privacy Act, and your permitted purpose is confirmed during account setup.

That confirmation is what keeps the check bounded. Social verification is available for identity corroboration, screening and due diligence. It is not a general-purpose research tool, and access is conditioned on the purpose you registered.

No. Social records are licensed for verification and screening purposes only, and marketing use is excluded by contract.

This is a hard limit, not a policy setting. The licensing that makes this data available for identity work depends on it not being repurposed for targeting or contact, and that applies regardless of what your own privacy notices might otherwise allow.

Records refresh continuously as profiles change, and each result shows when the underlying record was last observed.

The observation date does real work in this context. A profile that was last seen three years ago tells you the account existed then, not that it is active now. For fake-profile detection, where account age and recent activity are the signal, treating a stale observation as current would invert the conclusion.