3 ms·

It appears this would be litigated overseas, but I'd like to speculate based on sound legal principles that should hopefully apply anywhere. I fail to see what

by jarrett 15y ago

It appears this would be litigated overseas, but I'd like to speculate based on sound legal principles that should hopefully apply anywhere. I fail to see what sort of claim GoodData would bring against Start2Cloud. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that Start2Cloud did violate the GoodData terms of service by signing up for the purpose of writing a review. What remedies would be available? According to the GoodData TOS (http://www.gooddata.com/terms-of-use http://www.gooddata.com/terms-of-use), GoodData could terminate Start2Cloud's account. But I don't see anything about GoodData collecting damages for something like this. So suppose GoodData does sue for breach of contract. How can they calculate damages? How can they demonstrate quantifiable harm arising from Start2Cloud's use of the service? Normally, I'd expect to see a libel suit threatened in a situation like this. But there was no mention of that in GoodData's message. Apparently, they're basing their threats entirely on the TOS, which don't seem to offer a viable cause of action.

flipbrad 15y ago
To the extent that browsing a website is a restricted act under the law of copyright (see NLA v Meltwater for a ridiculous UK holding along those lines), I suppose you have copyright infringement if you engage in a restricted act without fully complying with the terms of the licence. If a judge were to rule similarly in the jurisdiction chosen for the dispute, and, like the US, there were statutory damages, I guess an award could come from there. That's farfetched and, IMO, based on bad law, but even an action for breach of contract that ended in a nominal award for damages (say, $1) could be punitive (on costs) in a loser-pays legal system.
jaylevitt 15y ago
Why would it be litigated overseas? The TOS explicitly state that they're governed by US law, which (oh my!) is clear that truth is an absolute defense to libel. So IANAL but yes, all they have is a civil claim with no stipulated damages.
- jarrett 15y ago
  Based on the OP, it seems that both parties are overseas. But you're right about the TOS. I think it could go either way.
  - jaylevitt 15y ago
    You're right - perhaps, even though their threat letter mentions the TOS, their legal strategy is based on the laws of their country instead (e.g. maybe they have a libel law that's more plaintiff-friendly than the US).

by jarrett 15y ago

flipbrad 15y ago

To the extent that browsing a website is a restricted act under the law of copyright (see NLA v Meltwater for a ridiculous UK holding along those lines), I suppose you have copyright infringement if you engage in a restricted act without fully complying with the terms of the licence. If a judge were to rule similarly in the jurisdiction chosen for the dispute, and, like the US, there were statutory damages, I guess an award could come from there. That's farfetched and, IMO, based on bad law, but even an action for breach of contract that ended in a nominal award for damages (say, $1) could be punitive (on costs) in a loser-pays legal system.

jaylevitt 15y ago

Why would it be litigated overseas? The TOS explicitly state that they're governed by US law, which (oh my!) is clear that truth is an absolute defense to libel. So IANAL but yes, all they have is a civil claim with no stipulated damages.

jarrett 15y ago
Based on the OP, it seems that both parties are overseas. But you're right about the TOS. I think it could go either way.
- jaylevitt 15y ago
  You're right - perhaps, even though their threat letter mentions the TOS, their legal strategy is based on the laws of their country instead (e.g. maybe they have a libel law that's more plaintiff-friendly than the US).