3 ms·
Not a lawyer but I suspect there's a viable tortious interference claim. Revocation is effectively telling your customers that your product is unsafe, if done w
by ikeboy 6y ago
Not a lawyer but I suspect there's a viable tortious interference claim. Revocation is effectively telling your customers that your product is unsafe, if done without cause it could be actionable.
- gruez 6y ago>Revocation is effectively telling your customers that your product is unsafe ...or that the certificate was no longer in compliance with their Certificate Practice Statement. It looks like their CPS gives them a great deal of leeway here. https://sectigo.com/uploads/files/Sectigo-CPS-v5.2.pdf#page=50 https://sectigo.com/uploads/files/Sectigo-CPS-v5.2.pdf#page=...
- ikeboy 6y agoThe main clauses either require a reasonable belief, which is a factual question that could easily go against the CA, or says they need to be "identified" as publishers of malicious software, without specifying how. An antivirus site that has many false positives likely wouldn't qualify.