Based on what the article says, it sounds like the Google auto-blocking was correct. The website owner's theory is that someone used their demo to upload a gen

Based on what the article says, it sounds like the Google auto-blocking was correct. The website owner's theory is that someone used their demo to upload a genuinely malicious file, and presumably then shared it to others. Adding the site to their blocklist immediately is a reasonable action taken in defense of Google's users. It's certainly not libel for them to truthfully say the website is hosting malicious content. Well, not in the US; other jurisdictions don't necessarily have truth as a defense. (Tortious interference is complicated, but typically requires that the person interfering knows about the business relationship they're obstructing, and is taking the action for the purpose of obstructing it. It seems like a stretch here.) As always with Google, the real issue here is their awful communication and slow responses to people who can't find a way to go outside the normal channels. EDIT: and the article has some useful suggestions for practices to follow if you need to let people upload files as a demo. I hadn't really considered the purpose of a separate domain for such things from this angle before.