IMO, he doesn't seem like a fraud and certainly doesn't appear to be anything along the lines of a David Lang or Matt Barvo.
I personally don't think I'd consider his school if I lived close to it and had other options. Perhaps I'm a traditionalist and like the R Gracie affiliation my current gym has. Another part of me thinks that if he can "self learn," then why would I need him when I could theoretically do the same thing?
It's not really a fraud in the same sense as them, but it's shady and weird.
Reading the guy's background, it's pretty similar to mine. We are both American martial artists who started training at age 5. I started at a Karate school that had blended other arts to become more practical. I remember guys watching the Gracie tapes in the early 90s. We added grappling to the curriculum. We were doing CSW under Erik Paulson.
None of this I count as BJJ though. I say I started BJJ in 2004 when I met my first BJJ instructor Andrew Yao. I started as a white belt, and I was a white belt for over 2 years.
Was I better than the normal white belt standard? Of course. I had trained grappling previously, and I was a white belt for a while too. I was a white belt so long because my instructor was just a blue belt himself. This was a college club. It wasn't until my instructor graduated and I met a brown belt from Balance that I was able to get under an affiliated school and get promoted to blue belt.
When I read stories like on that page, I react negatively because I understand exactly what it is like to learn on your own, and I also understand very well the reasons why I didn't just go seeking rank for the sake of it. All of my promotions happened the normal way because I wouldn't want them any other way.
Skills on the mat and telling the truth about lineage are two separate things for me. It is totally possible to be great on the mat and not be from BJJ. Accordingly, I don't think you should claim a BJJ lineage if you didn't come up from one. And a BJJ black belt means a BJJ lineage.
I just wish people would be up front with how they learned their stuff and just call it what it is. Seems simple enough to me. I don't like watching guys calling the same art by different names based on what is going to sell the best. Just say what it is.
I get the marketing aspect of it, but there is just no way I can look at a website like that and not feel like something is wrong. It's walking that super thin line that Lloyd was walking, and what did we learn from that? If something intuitively feels wrong, it probably is.