Have you ever searched for a domain name to see whether it is available, and when you came back a few hours later to buy it, found that someone else had suddenly registered it? You are not alone. This phenomenon is called domain front-running and it is one of the most controversial practices in the world of domain registrars.

In this article, we take a detailed look at what domain front-running is, which registrars have been accused of such practices on the basis of documented evidence, and how you can protect yourself.

What Is Domain Front-Running?

According to Wikipedia, domain front-running is the practice whereby a registrar uses insider information to register domains for the purpose of reselling them or earning revenue from ads on the domain’s landing page.

The ICANN Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) defines the phenomenon as “the opportunity for a party to obtain some form of insider information regarding an Internet user’s preference for registering a domain name and to use this opportunity to pre-emptively register that domain name.”

As ICANNWikinotes, the public perception of domain front-running is that it is an unfair practice that harms users. It is often compared to insider trading on the stock markets.

How Domain Front-Running Works

The process is simple but insidious:

The user visits a registrar’s website and types in a domain name to check whether it is available.
The system logs the query and flags it as “interesting” or “valuable”.
Before the user has a chance to buy the domain, the registrar (or one of its partners) registers it.
The user is forced to buy the domain from that registrar at a higher price, or to wait for it to expire.

Related Bad Practices in the Domain Market

Domain front-running is not the only questionable practice. According to ICANN and LegalZoom, there are many related bad practices:

Practice	Description
Domain Front-Running	Registering a domain based on users’ search data before they have a chance to buy it.
Domain Tasting	Mass registration of domains for 5 days (grace period) to test their profitability without paying.
Domain Kiting	Deleting and re-registering a domain within the grace period to avoid payment.
Domain Warehousing	The registrar holds on to expired domains for resale instead of letting them become available.
Cybersquatting	Registering domains containing other people’s trademarks for extortion or deception.
Typosquatting	Registering domains with typos of well-known brands (e.g. gooogle.com).

On domain tasting, according to Wikipedia, ICANN announced in August 2009 that before fees were imposed on excessive deletions, the peak number of domain tastings was over 15 million domains a month. After a $0.20 fee was imposed, tastings dropped below 60,000 a month.

The Network Solutions Case: The Biggest Front-Running Scandal

The best-documented domain front-running case involves Network Solutions, one of the largest and oldest registrars in the world.

What Was Revealed (January 2008)

In January 2008, Domain Name Wire published an investigation revealing that Network Solutions was automatically registering every domain searched for on its website. As the article put it, “If you try to register a domain at Network Solutions but decide not to register it, you will not be able to register it anywhere else.”

According to the Wikipedia article on Network Solutions, Jonathon Nevett, the company’s VP of Policy, stated that the practice was “a security measure to protect customers”. If the domain “was not purchased within 4 days, it would be returned to the registry and be available for registration.”

The Class Action Lawsuit (February 2008)

On 25 February 2008, as reported by TechCrunch, a class action lawsuit was filed against Network Solutions and ICANN in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

According to Network World, the lawsuit stated, “Network Solutions has forced millions of people to buy domain names from them instead of cheaper competitors, through a scheme that has earned the company millions of dollars.”

The Register reported that attorney Brian Kabateck described the practice as “a very sophisticated form of price fixing”. Customers who searched for a domain but did not buy it right away “could not register their domain through any cheaper competitor because it was unavailable, held exclusively by Network Solutions, which offered to sell it at its outrageously high prices.”

The Outcome: $1 Million Settlement (2009)

On 3 April 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California gave preliminary approval to the settlement for the two consolidated cases: McElroy v. Network Solutions LLC (Case No. CV 08-01247) and Finseth v. Network Solutions (Case No. CV 08-01537).

According to Domain Name Wire, the settlement provided different compensation depending on the category of the affected party:

Those who searched for a domain and bought it in the same session: a $6 coupon for a future purchase
Those who searched for a domain and came back within 4 days to buy it: $9.91 in cash

About 50,000 people belonged to the second category, meaning they were forced to buy their domain from Network Solutions because the company had locked it. The $9.91 compensation was considered low, given that Network Solutions charged about $25 more per domain than its competitors (according to the lawsuit, it charged $34.99/year while competitors offered prices of around $9.99).

Commentators at the time described the settlement as “weak”, with one writing on Domain Name Wire, “Another example of abusive registrar behavior getting slap on the wrist.”

Network Solutions never officially admitted wrongdoing. As stated in the official settlement notice: “The Court has expressed no opinion regarding the merits of the Plaintiffs’ claims or Network Solutions’ liability.”

Two years later, in October 2011, Web.com announced its acquisition of Network Solutions for $405 million in cash and 18 million shares, with a total value of about $560 million. The acquisition was followed by mass layoffs and office closures.

Registrars with Accusations or Questionable Practices

Below, we present registrars that have been the subject of public complaints:

Network Solutions

Status: Proven Front-Running - Class Action Settlement $1M (2009)

Network Solutions was founded in 1979 and was the world’s first domain registrar, with an exclusive monopoly on .com, .net and .org until 1999. Despite its history, the company has attracted extensive complaints about bad practices.

The Front-Running Case (2008)

In January 2008, Domain Name Wire revealed that Network Solutions was automatically registering every domain searched for on its website. According to Courthouse News Service, plaintiff Chris McElroy discovered the practice when he searched for the domain “kidsearchnetwork.com” at Network Solutions, which told him it was available at a price of $34.99/year. When he went to GoDaddy for a better price, the domain showed as taken, locked by Network Solutions.

The Register reported that attorney Brian Kabateck described the practice as “a very sophisticated form of price fixing”, noting, “Customers could not register their domain through any cheaper competitor because it was unavailable, held exclusively by Network Solutions.”

The lawsuit was filed on 25 February 2008 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California by the law firms Kabateck Brown Kellner LLP and Engstrom, Lipscomb & Lack, with charges of “fraudulent concealment” and “unjust enrichment”. According to TechCrunch, the lawsuit also named ICANN as a co-defendant.

User Complaints on Forums about Network Solutions

Hacker News (2022): In a thread titled “Tell HN: Network Solutions Is a Scam”, one user wrote, “My uncle was paying over 60 dollars A YEAR to renew his domain… I told him it is basically a scam and moved him to Cloudflare, about 8 dollars a year. They did everything they could to stop me from transferring, including delaying sending the transfer codes and making it hard to get them sent in the first place.”

Hacker News (2021) – Dark Patterns: In another thread, a user wrote, “First, Network Solutions tried to make me pay a ‘domain redemption fee’, falsely blaming ICANN. After I told the representative that ICANN does not charge such a fee, they waived it. Then the representative refused to give me an authorization code unless I signed up for an extra year of service.”

NamePros Forum (2020): In a thread, a user complained, “I have sold a domain that is registered with Network Solutions. I requested the authorization code 3 days ago and they will not give it to me. I opened a support ticket, they do not reply. I have called them twice, and both times they said they would send it as soon as possible.”

Web Hosting Talk (2013): In a thread titled “Beware of the Network Solutions billing scam”, a user wrote, “They charged me $9.99 per domain last year. A year later they charged me $45 per domain… They automatically charge you 5 times the agreed amount without any notice.”

ConsumerAffairs: With a rating of 1.8/5 stars, complaints include “They blocked my domain transfer because I refused to pay for a directory listing”, “I was on the phone for 5 hours trying to fix 1 thing”, “They do not care at all.”

Better Business Bureau: On the BBB, users report “This is a scam company. Period”, “Their business model is built on deception, not service.”

PissedConsumer: With a rating of 1.2/5 stars and recommendations such as “Avoid”, “Do not buy your domains from Network Solutions”, “CHANGE THEM ALL”.

The Acquisition of Network Solutions and the Present Day

In October 2011, Web.com acquired Network Solutions for about $560 million. Mass layoffs and office closures followed. Today the company is owned by Newfold Digital (formerly Web.com Group).

As one analysis articleputs it, “Network Solutions apparently just survives thanks to customers who do not know how bad it is… They start with misleadingly low prices that then go up.”

After everything you have read, what do you think of Network Solutions’ practices?

GoDaddy

Status: Multiple user complaints about Front-Running (unproven) - FTC Settlement over security failures (2025)

GoDaddy, headquartered in Arizona, USA, is one of the largest registrars worldwide, serving about 5 million customers and managing almost a quarter of the 350 million registered domain names. Despite its size, the company has attracted numerous complaints.

Front-Running Accusations (Unproven)

There are repeated front-running accusations against GoDaddy on forums such as NamePros (2012) and NamePros (2023). However, none has been proven.

In September 2020, a post on Hacker News accused GoDaddy of registering the domain “felons.io” after a user searched for it. According to DomainInvesting.com, an investigation found that the domain had been registered by a third-party user in New York, not by GoDaddy.

According to Domain Incite, GoDaddy’s VP Registrar Paul Bindel stated, “These allegations are 100% false. This type of behavior is predatory, unethical, and contrary to everything we stand for as a company.”

Interestingly, as Domain Incite notes, “the HackerNews account that posted the original accusation appears to have been created on the same day as the post, which is literally the only thing it has ever posted on the site.”

FTC Settlement over Security Failures (2025)

On 21 May 2025, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) finalized a settlement with GoDaddy over misleading claims about data security.

According to the FTC complaint:

Despite its claims of “award-winning security”, GoDaddy failed to implement basic security measures
It did not use multi-factor authentication (MFA)
It did not monitor for security threats
It did not secure connections to services with access to customer data

Samuel Levine, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, said, “Millions of companies, especially small businesses, rely on web hosting providers like GoDaddy to secure their websites. The FTC is acting today to ensure that companies like GoDaddy strengthen their security systems.”

Multi-year Security Breaches (2019-2022)

According to Bleeping Computer, GoDaddy suffered a series of breaches linked to “a multi-year campaign by a sophisticated threat actor group”:

March 2020: According to Krebs on Security, a spear-phishing attack on a GoDaddy employee led to a breach affecting 28,000 customers and 199 employees. The hackers managed to change the DNS records of escrow.com, redirecting visitors to a malicious site. None of the accounts had MFA.

November 2021: According to Bank Info Security, a breach exposed the data of 1.2 million active and inactive Managed WordPress customers, including email addresses, WordPress admin passwords, sFTP credentials and private SSL keys.

December 2022: Hackers installed malware on GoDaddy’s servers that randomly redirected customer websites to malicious sites.

GoDaddy stated in an SEC filing, “We believe these incidents are part of a multi-year campaign by a sophisticated threat actor group that, among other things, installed malware on our systems and obtained pieces of code related to some services.”

Aggressive Upselling Practices and Hidden Fees

GoDaddy has become known for its aggressive upselling tactics. According to an analysis by HostScore:

“GoDaddy advertises hosting at ‘$5.99/month’. The real cost is $517/year after you add the ‘essential’ upsells. SSL certificate, $150/year (free with Let’s Encrypt everywhere else)… The checkout process is also full of aggressive upsells, offering email plans, website builders and security add-ons by default.”

It also states, “Renewing a standard .com domain can cost up to $45/year, which is significantly higher than industry standards. By comparison, most reputable registrars such as Namecheap charge around $15-$20/year.”

On WHOIS privacy, “While most modern registrars offer it for free, GoDaddy charges $19.99/year.”

User Complaints on Forums about GoDaddy

ConsumerAffairs: With a rating of about 1.5/5 stars, complaints include “If I could give zero stars, I would. GoDaddy’s customer service is not just bad, it is insultingly awful. I called five times in one week. Each time I waited over 45 minutes on hold, only to be disconnected or transferred to nowhere.”

Better Business Bureau: On the BBB, users report “This seems to be a clearly unethical tactic to trap customers who are more likely to have forgotten old subscriptions, with charges much higher than what they originally agreed to.”

Reddit (aggregated): According to aggregated reviews, “Did you even Google GoDaddy? It is a shady, crappy, terrible, scammy company, and has been for over a decade. All of this is common knowledge.”

Blog Marketing Academy: According to an analysis, “In 2012, the final nail in the coffin for me with GoDaddy was when I started getting charged for ‘CashParking’. They activated ‘Premium CashParking’ on my account and started charging me $9.99/month without my permission.”

Warrior Forum: In a thread, a user reported that GoDaddy demanded a $199 administration fee for a single spam complaint from an affiliate. GoDaddy asked, “Include in this statement authorization for GoDaddy.com to charge a non-refundable $199 administration fee to the credit card on file for your account.”

The Company’s Position

In a statement to the media about the FTC settlement, GoDaddy said, “We invest significant resources to help protect our customers’ data and websites, and we intend to continue to do so. It is worth noting that the resolution of this matter involves no admission of liability and no monetary penalty.”

After everything we have presented in detail, what do you think of GoDaddy’s practices?

123 Reg

Status: User complaints about Front-Running (unproven) - Multiple service problems

123 Reg is one of the largest registrars in the United Kingdom, with a history going back to the time when it operated as “Supanames”. Today it is owned by GoDaddy through Host Europe Group.

Front-Running Complaints (Unproven)

On the NamePros forum (August 2023), a user wrote, “This has happened to me twice in two weeks. I search for a domain name and it is available at 123 Reg. I tell my client, who searches for it almost immediately, and it is no longer available, but it can be bought if you pay GoDaddy a brokerage fee and then a significantly higher price for the domain.”

A similar complaint on Sitejabberreads, “I searched for a domain name using a reputable site first, and the domain I was checking was not taken. Then I tried 123-reg.co.uk and the same domain was supposedly taken and unavailable.”

There are no court rulings or official investigations into these accusations.

User Complaints

Trustpilot: On Trustpilot, with 440+ reviews, users report “The company took over our domain name from tsohost and deleted all the MX records in the process, effectively locking us out of our account.”

WHTop: Rating of 1.6/10 from 141 users.

Reviews.io: A user wrote, “We are a small business and since 31 December we have been paralyzed by 123-Reg. Our case is with the CEO Office and even they cannot solve the problem.”

ICANN’s Investigation into Domain Front-Running

According to the official ICANN announcement (August 2009), ICANN commissioned security expert Benjamin Edelman to conduct a study on domain front-running. Over three rounds of tests across a ten-month period, the study examined hundreds of cases.

The Findings

According to The Register, the SSAC investigated 120 alleged examples of front-running and found no evidence of wrongdoing. The report stated, “The SSAC does not have sufficient information to conclude that domain front-running is practiced to a significant degree by parties offering search services.”

A striking statistic, “Of the 1.4 billion attempts to register domains, only 3.3 million were completed, indicating that, on average, 333 attempts are made for every successful registration.” This explains why many users think their domain was “stolen”. In reality, many others were searching for the same one.

However, as ICANNWikinotes, “although no conclusive evidence of front-running was found, the SSAC did not rule out the possibility and expressed concern about the ‘ever-deteriorating relationship of trust between registrants and registrars’.”

What Does ICANN Say Today?

Section 3.7.9 of the 2013 RAA

The 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) includes a provision on warehousing and speculation. Specifically, Section 3.7.9 states:

“Registrar shall abide by any Consensus Policy prohibiting or restricting warehousing of or speculation in domain names by registrars.”

In other words, the Registrar must comply with any Consensus Policy that prohibits or restricts warehousing of, or speculation in, domain names by registrars.

The Critical Gap: No Consensus Policy Has Been Adopted

According to an official ICANN Advisory:

“Statements often cite the provision (Section 3.7.9) of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA), but then note that no specification or policy has been adopted under this provision.”

In other words, Section 3.7.9 works as a “placeholder”, an empty framework waiting to be filled with specific policies that never came.

Criticism of ICANN

According to Domain Mondo:

“ICANN is ‘MIA’ (missing in action) in its duty to govern its own accredited registrars and to prohibit warehousing of or speculation in domain names. According to Wikipedia, ‘ICANN has not yet amended the RAA with policies to limit domain warehousing and related practices.’”

What Actually Applies to Registrars

Although there is no specific policy on front-running, the RAA includes other obligations:

Section 3.7.7: Registrars must have an agreement with the registrant for every domain
Section 3.7.5: Registrars are required to cancel domains whose renewal has not been paid
Section 3.7.3: Registrars may not tell customers that they have privileged access to the registry

Recent Developments: DNS Abuse Amendments 2024

In April 2024, ICANN implemented amendments to the RAA to tackle DNS Abuse (malware, botnets, phishing, pharming). According to the six-month report, ICANN:

Opened 192 DNS Abuse investigations
Issued Notices of Breach to registrars
Led to the suspension of 2,700+ malicious domains

However, these amendments do not cover front-running or warehousing.

Conclusion: The Gap Remains

Despite the “placeholders” in the RAA since 2013, ICANN has not adopted specific policies that explicitly prohibit domain front-running. Section 4.2.5 states that “prohibitions on warehousing of or speculation in domain names” are a subject for Consensus Policies, but the ICANN community has not yet produced such policies. Anyone interested in contributing to the development of such policies can visit ICANN’s participation page.

How to Protect Yourself from Domain Front-Running

Based on the recommendations of the ICANN SSAC and of experts, here are some practical tips:

1. Use a Trusted Registrar for Your Searches

The best protection is to run your searches with a registrar that has proven reliability and a clean track record. Konet is an accredited .GR and .ΕΛ registrar of the EETT (Hellenic Telecommunications and Post Commission) Internet Domain Name Registry since 2004, with more than 25 years in the market (founded in 1999) and zero front-running complaints.

2. Neutral WHOIS for International Domains (.com, .net, .org, etc.)

Instead of searching on registrars, use the official ICANN Lookup which does not log your searches for commercial purposes.

3. WHOIS for Greek Domains (.gr, .ελ)

For Greek domains, use the official ICS-FORTH tool: https://grweb.ics.forth.gr/public/

4. WHOIS for Cypriot Domains (.cy)

For Cypriot domains, use the official registry: https://registry.nic.cy/cy-ui/home

5. WHOIS for European Domains (.eu)

For .eu domains, use the official EURid tool: https://whois.eurid.eu/

6. WHOIS for British Domains (.uk, .co.uk)

For British domains, use the official Nominet tool: https://www.nominet.uk/whois/

7. Use the Terminal WHOIS Command

On Linux/Mac, open the Terminal and type:

whois example.com

This connects directly to the registry, with no middleman.

8. Buy Immediately

If you find a domain you want, buy it immediately. Do not let it “sleep” for days. Every hour that passes increases the risk.

9. Avoid Registrars with a Problematic Track Record

Choose a registrar with no court cases, FTC settlements, or mass user complaints about front-running or other unfair practices.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Is domain front-running illegal?

There is no specific law that explicitly prohibits domain front-running at an international level. However, the ICANN 2013 RAA includes provisions (Section 3.7.9) against warehousing of and speculation in domain names by registrars, although no specific Consensus Policy has yet been adopted to enforce them.
Based on formal complaints filed in court, some cases have characterized such practices as unlawful. The best-known case is the 2008 class action against Network Solutions, in which the lawsuit described front-running as “fraudulent and deceptive”. The case ended in an out-of-court settlement in 2009, without the company admitting liability.

Are there major registrars accused of front-running?

Based on user comments on forums and formal complaints:
With documented court cases: Network Solutions faced a class action in 2008 over its “Name Guardian” practice, which registered domains after users searched for them. The case was documented by a public statement from the company to CNET and ended in a settlement.
With repeated user complaints (unproven): GoDaddy has faced multiple accusations on forums such as Hacker News and NamePros. However, according to Domain Incite, the company firmly denies them, and an investigation by DomainInvesting.com in 2020 found no evidence. There are no court rulings against it.
With user complaints on forums: 123 Reg (a GoDaddy subsidiary) has received complaints on NamePros, but with no evidence or court cases.

What is “domain tasting” and why did it stop?

According to ICANNWiki, domain tasting was the practice of registering thousands of domain names during the 5-day Add Grace Period (AGP) to test their profitability through pay-per-click advertising. If a domain did not generate enough revenue, it was returned free of charge before the grace period ended.
ICANN tackled the problem with two measures:
June 2008: Introduction of a $0.20 fee per deleted domain above a certain threshold
December 2008: Adoption of the AGP Limits Policy with stricter charges (the full registration fee)
According to the official ICANN report in August 2009, these measures led to a 99.7% reduction in AGP deletes from June 2008 to April 2009 (from 17.6 million to a few thousand).

Where can I file a complaint about a registrar?

There are several options, depending on the nature of the problem:
For breaches of a registrar’s contractual obligations: File a complaint with ICANN Contractual Compliance. According to ICANN, most cases are resolved within 17 days.
For matters outside ICANN’s remit:
Billing or service disputes: Better Business Bureau or International Consumer Protection and Enforcement Network
Unlawful practices: the competent authorities in your country (e.g. the FTC in the USA)
For Greek domains (.gr, .ελ): Contact the Internet Domain Name Registry run by ICS-FORTH.
Important note: ICANN has no remit over ccTLDs (e.g. .gr, .uk, .de) or over website content.

Why do domains I just searched for “disappear”?

Based on user comments and research, there are several possible explanations:
Statistical coincidence: According to research by the ICANN SSAC, on average 333 people search for the same domain name before someone finally registers it. What looks like front-running may simply be someone else who had the same idea at the same time.
Incorrect availability display: Some registrars show domains as “available” when they are in fact already registered, because their databases are updated with a delay.
Domain investors and automated bots: There are tools that monitor trends, new words or popular searches and automatically register domains with potential value.
Actual front-running: In some documented cases, based on formal complaints filed in court (such as the 2008 Network Solutions case), registrars did register domains after users searched for them.

How can I protect myself?

To minimize the risk:
Use neutral WHOIS tools instead of searching on registrars.
Buy immediately if you find an available domain you want.
Choose a trusted registrar with no history of court cases or mass user complaints.
Avoid sharing your domain name ideas publicly before you register them.

Why Konet Is the Right Choice

Konet Web Services has been active in web hosting since 1999 and has been an accredited .GR and .ΕΛ registrar of the EETT Internet Domain Name Registry since 2004. The direct connection to the Greek Registry means faster domain registration and management, with no middlemen.

Commitment to Ethics and Transparency

Unlike the practices described in this article, Konet follows a strict code of ethics:

Zero front-running: We do not register domains our customers search for, for our own benefit
No warehousing: We do not hold on to expired domains to resell them at higher prices
Stable pricing: We have kept the same prices for .gr domains since 2010, with no surprise renewal increases.
No aggressive upselling: We do not add services to your cart without your consent.
Same price for registration and renewal: So that customers always know what to expect, since our founding we have charged the same price for both registering and renewing domains.

Proven Reliability

With 25+ years in the Greek market, Konet has proven that it does not take the road of unfair practices. We also offer quality web hosting services, with professional-grade infrastructure and Greek-language support from experienced technicians.

If you are looking for a registrar you can trust for domain registration and management, Konet is a reliable Greek choice.

At Konet, we believe that trust is built with actions, not words. That is why, for 25+ years, we have operated with complete transparency. When you search for a domain at Konet, your idea stays yours.

Ready to register your domain securely?

Visit konet.gr and get started today.

Legal Disclaimer

This article is provided for information and educational purposes only. The information it contains comes from publicly available sources, including court documents, official announcements by regulatory authorities, press reports and user comments on online forums.

Clarifications:

Konet Web Services does not express, endorse or accept any view or position regarding the complaints mentioned in this article, other than those confirmed by final court rulings or official decisions of regulatory authorities.

The user comments quoted are the opinions of third parties and are presented verbatim for the sake of complete information. Quoting them does not constitute acceptance of their truth or accuracy.

The companies mentioned in this article retain the right to deny allegations that have not been proven in court, as many have already done publicly.

This article does not constitute legal advice and should not be taken as such.

Readers are encouraged to verify the information independently and to consult qualified professionals before making any decision.

This article is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0). You may republish it, provided you credit Konet as the source with a link to this article.

Domain Front-Running: What It Is and How to Protect Yourself