Fastcase (now part of vLex) indexes official court opinions provided free to attorneys through state bar partnerships -- it covers federal circuit courts, the US Supreme Court, and state appellate opinions across all 50 states.
Direct removal from Fastcase is not available for official court opinions -- sealing or expungement at the originating court is the primary mechanism that will eventually flow through to legal research databases.
Fastcase's primary audience is legal professionals -- unlike Justia or CourtListener, most Fastcase content is behind a bar member login and may not rank directly in Google, but the same opinions will typically appear on public platforms.
AI legal research tools built on Fastcase and vLex data can surface court opinions in professional due diligence contexts even when the content does not appear in public Google searches.
Fastcase launched in 1999 as a legal research platform with a distinctive model: rather than requiring individual attorney subscriptions at the full market rate, Fastcase partnered with state bar associations to provide free access to their members as a bar membership benefit. This approach made Fastcase one of the most widely used legal research tools in the country -- attorneys in the majority of US states have had access to Fastcase through their bar association at no additional cost. In 2022, Fastcase merged with vLex, a global legal research company, creating one of the largest legal information networks in the world. Today Fastcase operates as part of vLex's platform, and any requests related to Fastcase content should be directed through vLex's support and legal channels.
Fastcase's coverage spans the US federal appellate system comprehensively: all federal circuit courts, the US Supreme Court, and a large portion of federal district court decisions. Its state court coverage is particularly strong -- the platform has invested heavily in state appellate court opinions as a differentiator from larger competitors that historically focused on federal content. This makes Fastcase a significant repository for state-level litigation outcomes, including cases involving private individuals in family law, employment, civil rights, contract, and criminal matters that produced written appellate opinions.
Court opinions appear on Fastcase for the same reason they appear on any legal research platform: these are public records produced by the court system, and legal research platforms exist to make them searchable and accessible to practitioners. Fastcase retrieves opinion data from court systems directly, from official reporters, and from data partnerships. When your name appears in an opinion -- as a party, an attorney, or in the body of the decision -- Fastcase indexes it as part of that opinion and makes it searchable. The platform's value to attorneys depends on this comprehensiveness; gaps in coverage undermine the research tool's reliability.
For most people researching court record removal, the most important practical distinction is accessibility. Justia and CourtListener are fully public platforms -- anyone can search and read their content without any login or subscription, and Google indexes their content comprehensively. This is why a Justia or CourtListener listing typically creates a direct, immediate Google search problem: the opinion is on a high-authority domain, freely accessible, and prominently indexed. Our guides on Justia court record removal and CourtListener removal cover those platforms in detail.
Fastcase's accessibility model is different. The core Fastcase platform is accessible through bar member logins -- an attorney uses their state bar credentials to log in, and searches happen within a private session. Content inside the bar-member Fastcase system is not indexed by Google in the same way public platforms are. This means that a court opinion available on Fastcase does not automatically rank in Google for your name search simply because it exists on Fastcase's servers. For Google search visibility specifically, Fastcase typically presents less immediate exposure than Justia or CourtListener.
However, the distinction is not absolute. Fastcase, as part of the vLex platform, has some publicly accessible content -- certain case pages and legal summaries are reachable without a login, and vLex's expanded platform includes publicly indexed materials. Additionally, the same opinion that exists on Fastcase is almost certainly also available on Justia, CourtListener, Google Scholar, or other public platforms -- so the Google visibility problem often exists regardless of Fastcase's privacy architecture. The key difference is the audience: Fastcase is primarily a professional legal research tool. When someone searches for your name on Google, they will likely encounter a Justia or CourtListener listing before they encounter a Fastcase listing. But when an attorney, a paralegal, an investigator, or a compliance professional runs a legal research search for your name, they will encounter the Fastcase listing directly.
Fastcase's presence in the legal professional community makes it particularly relevant for business owners, executives, attorneys, and professionals whose reputation is scrutinized in due diligence processes. A general public Google searcher is unlikely to encounter your Fastcase record directly. An attorney evaluating you as a potential business partner, a law firm vetting a lateral hire, or a compliance officer running a background check will almost certainly use legal research tools that include Fastcase and vLex data.
You've already done the hard part - finding out what's out there. We handle the rest: every platform removal, Google de-indexing, background check database, and AI search result. No upfront cost. Completely confidential. Learn more about expungement vs. record sealing on our blog.
Direct removal of court opinions from Fastcase is not available through a standard request process. Fastcase -- now operating under vLex -- treats its court opinion database as a reflection of official public records. The platform's position, consistent with Westlaw, LexisNexis, Bloomberg Law, and other professional legal research databases, is that it has a legitimate professional purpose in providing attorneys with accurate, complete access to court opinions, and that removing accurate court records on request would undermine the integrity of the research environment.
This is both a principled position and a practical reality. Attorneys depend on legal research platforms for complete, reliable access to the body of case law. A legal research platform that selectively removes opinions based on party requests would be unreliable for practitioners, could expose the platform to liability for misleading research results, and would fundamentally conflict with the principle that the court record is a public record accessible to all. Fastcase and vLex will not remove accurately published court opinions based on a party's general dissatisfaction with the content or the reputational impact of appearing in the record.
For opinions that contain information that should not have been included in a public filing in the first place -- social security numbers, financial account numbers, medical records, or the names of minor children -- a different avenue exists. Courts in most jurisdictions allow parties to file motions to redact specific personal information from public filings and opinions. If granted, the redaction flows through to the official record, and legal research databases including Fastcase should eventually reflect the updated version. This is a targeted remedy for specific data exposure, not a general opinion removal.
The most consequential action you can take at the Fastcase level is to contact vLex's support team directly when you have obtained a court order sealing or expunging the underlying record. Providing the support team with a copy of the court order and requesting an expedited database update is more effective than simply waiting for automatic propagation, which can take weeks or months. Fastcase and vLex update their databases through periodic re-pulls from court systems and data providers; a direct communication with supporting documentation accelerates that process.
Because direct removal from Fastcase is not available for official court opinions, the most comprehensive solution is action at the originating court. Sealing and expungement are distinct legal mechanisms that work differently depending on the jurisdiction and the type of case, but both have the effect of converting a public court record into a restricted or eliminated one -- and that change eventually flows through to legal research databases that source their content from official court records.
Expungement is the more complete remedy: it eliminates the record from the court system's official files. Eligibility for expungement varies significantly by state and by case type. Criminal records are expungeable in most states for certain categories of offenses -- typically first-time or nonviolent offenses, dismissed charges, acquittals, and juvenile records -- when the defendant meets the eligibility criteria and the waiting period has passed. Civil records are generally not expungeable in the way criminal records are, though some specific categories (certain family court matters, youthful civil violations) may be eligible depending on the jurisdiction.
Sealing is available more broadly and restricts access to the record without eliminating it. A sealed record remains in the court system but is not publicly accessible -- it cannot be obtained through public records requests, and it should not appear in publicly available legal research databases. Sealing is available in many civil contexts where expungement is not, including certain family law matters, civil settlements with confidentiality provisions, and cases involving sensitive categories of personal information. The grounds for sealing are jurisdiction-specific and often require a balance between the public interest in open court proceedings and the private interest in restricting access to sensitive or potentially harmful records.
For court opinions specifically -- as opposed to underlying case files -- sealing or modification at the appellate level is a separate and often more complex process. Appellate courts publish opinions to communicate legal reasoning to the bar and to develop the law; they are generally reluctant to seal or depublish opinions absent compelling grounds. Petitions to depublish, seal, or modify appellate opinions do exist and are occasionally granted, but they face a high bar. An attorney specializing in privacy law or appellate procedure is the appropriate resource for evaluating whether a specific opinion is a candidate for court-level modification.
Even after a court enters a sealing or expungement order, legal research databases do not update instantaneously. Fastcase and vLex update their content through periodic data pulls from court systems and reporters. After obtaining a court order, follow up directly with vLex/Fastcase support with a copy of the order to request an expedited update. Without this follow-up, the sealed record may persist in the legal research database for an extended period.
For Fastcase or vLex URLs that do appear in Google search results, a Google de-indexing request can address the Google search visibility problem without requiring Fastcase's cooperation. When a specific URL is de-indexed from Google, it no longer appears in Google search results for name searches -- even if the underlying Fastcase or vLex page continues to exist. For pages that are publicly accessible and ranking in Google, this is a meaningful lever.
The practical challenge is that most of the Google search visibility problem related to court opinions is driven by Justia, CourtListener, and Google Scholar -- not Fastcase directly. The same opinion that appears in Fastcase will typically appear on one or more of these fully public platforms, and those public URLs are what rank in Google. De-indexing a Fastcase URL, if it ranks at all, is only a partial solution. The more important Google de-indexing targets are the public legal research platform URLs where the same opinion is freely accessible and ranking for your name.
Use Google's legal removal troubleshooter to identify and submit de-indexing requests for all URLs where the opinion appears in Google results -- including any publicly accessible Fastcase or vLex pages as well as Justia and CourtListener listings of the same opinion. The outdated content removal tool is relevant for older opinions where the person is now a private individual and the public interest in the continued prominence of the result is no longer proportionate to the harm it causes. EU and UK residents should also evaluate whether the GDPR right to be forgotten process applies to their situation -- Google is legally required to evaluate formal erasure requests from individuals covered by EU and UK data protection law.
Tell us about your situation and a removal specialist will personally review it and respond within one business day. No pressure, no obligation.
Direct removal of court opinions from Fastcase is not available through a standard request process. Fastcase (now part of vLex) indexes official court opinions that are public records. The realistic path is action at the originating court - if a court seals or expunges the underlying case record, that change should propagate to legal research databases including Fastcase over time. Contact vLex support with a copy of any court order to request an expedited update.
Fastcase launched in 1999 and provided free legal research access to attorneys through state bar association partnerships. In 2022, Fastcase merged with vLex, a global legal research platform headquartered in Spain with operations worldwide. As of 2026, Fastcase operates under the vLex umbrella, and all requests related to Fastcase content should be directed through vLex's support and legal channels.
Some Fastcase content is publicly accessible and may be indexed by Google, but the majority of Fastcase's court opinion database is accessible only through bar member logins or paid vLex subscriptions. For most court opinions, the same content will appear on Justia or CourtListener - which are fully public and heavily Google-indexed - before ranking from a Fastcase URL. That said, publicly accessible Fastcase or vLex pages may rank, and a Google de-indexing request for specific URLs is the appropriate remedy.
The key difference is accessibility. Justia and CourtListener are fully public platforms - content is freely accessible without any login and comprehensively indexed by Google. Fastcase operates primarily behind a bar membership login or vLex subscription, limiting its public Google footprint. From a reputation management perspective, Justia and CourtListener typically cause more direct Google visibility problems. However, Fastcase's integration into attorney workflows means legal professionals conducting due diligence will encounter Fastcase content even if it does not appear in general Google searches.
A court-ordered sealing or expungement is the most effective mechanism for removing content from Fastcase over time. When a court seals a record, legal research platforms including Fastcase should reflect that change - the public record no longer exists. The update is not instantaneous; Fastcase updates its database through periodic re-pulls from court systems, so sealed records may persist for weeks or months. Providing vLex's support team with a copy of the order and requesting an expedited review is the recommended follow-up step.
Since the 2022 merger, all Fastcase-related requests are handled through vLex. Visit vlex.com/contact to submit a support or privacy request. For expedited processing of a court-ordered sealing or expungement, email their support team with the subject line referencing a court order and attach a certified copy of the order. vLex processes these on a case-by-case basis and typically responds within two to four weeks.
Yes. Fastcase has historically invested heavily in state appellate court opinions as a differentiator from larger competitors. The platform covers federal circuit courts, the US Supreme Court, a significant portion of federal district court decisions, and appellate opinions from all 50 states. This makes Fastcase a meaningful repository for state-level litigation outcomes including family law, employment, civil rights, contract disputes, and criminal matters that produced written appellate opinions.
The core Fastcase platform is accessible through bar member logins or vLex subscriptions, which means casual public searchers cannot directly access it. However, several categories of non-attorneys do have access: legal professionals at law firms, corporate legal departments, insurance companies, compliance teams, and professional investigators commonly subscribe to vLex or use related services. The practical risk is not from general public searches but from professional due diligence in business, employment, or legal contexts.
Official Court Records vs. Third-Party Sites - Can Court Records Be Removed? - Why Court Records Show in Google - Court Records on Background Checks
Our specialists handle Fastcase and vLex court record issues, Google de-indexing, and suppression campaigns -- tailored to what's realistic for your specific case. No upfront cost. Learn more about court record removal on our blog.
You only pay if we remove your court record. No charge if we don’t.
A+ BBB · 100% Confidential · You only pay if we remove your court record
Related guides: Court Records Removal Guide · Sealed Records Appearing in Google · Civil & Criminal Record Removal · Court Records on Background Checks