Wow!
Is
this what they are complaining about? That's not even a real review! It is one man's "opinion" based on comments posted on several sites.
In reading the actual complaint in which they call the defendant, "Bleeping"
it really does seem like a bunch of frivolous feculent blather.
Does BC receive "a commission" for products it recommends? Specifically MBAM? If so, by selectively choosing which programs they collect from (and purposefully not selecting competitive programs) this may cause an issue - but still, many review magazines collect ad revenue from products under review all the time. I don't see any problem unless BC was asked by Enigma to place revenue sharing ads on the site, but was turned down.
But still, that "review" was QM7's opinion and posters, even mods, are allowed to post their opinions without the site owners being liable. It is my understanding that only if there is a "site policy" affecting a specific product that any liability issues could be contested.
The suit claims their product received the West Coast Labs "Checkmark Certification". I cannot find it on West Coast Labs (but admittedly, not the easiest site to navigate - but I see many other security companies listed).
I note the suit calls out "Quietman7" as a mod and reported that mods have the privilege to delete posts not wanted. This, IMO, puts all mods on all sites on notice that they may be called out in future frivolous lawsuits is they delete a post that recommends a particular product, or they post unfavorable comments about that product. That would suggest if we delete spam posts, someone might sue us. That is BS, of course, but defending against BS can be expensive and a real PITA. And the thought of being sued can be intimidating.
I think all tech support sites everywhere should join BC in defending against this, and launch a countersuit for attempting to stifle and censor free speech.
