zlacker

>>spiral+(OP)
Brand Shield and other AI slopware needs to be sued to death for all the damage they cause, including their customer's reputation and bottom line

>>rf15+52
Of course the problem is that legally speaking, they don't cause any damage - service providers they target cause the damage. BS have no true authority over these service providers, just the threat of some legal claim. The service providers comply voluntarily as they don't want to spend time checking if the claim is valid.

>>kvdvee+76
I don't think this is the kind of advice a good lawyer would give.

BrandShield, Funko, and iwantmyname all caused serious financial harm through, at a minimum, tortious negligence.

I'm not a lawyer, but even a yokel like me knows there's more to this legally than a shrug and "the software did it".

>>PostOn+U8
IANAL either, but my guess is that itch.io has precisely 0 plausible legal recourse here.

The strongest case would be something along the lines of breach of contract via the domain registrar, but your standard internet contract has a term in it that amounts to "we get the right to fuck you", so I assume that applies here, so no breach of contract actually exists. This also kills every claim that's dependent on breach of contract, so tortious interference is also dead.

Fraud will fail because itch.io itself isn't being defrauded at the very least. Business disparagement, and anything else along the lines of defamation, is going to fail because you need something like actual malice--specific knowledge of falsity--there, and that's essentially impossible to prove, not without somebody admitting that they knew all along everything was false.

Tortious interference is dead for several reasons. First, you need an underlying tort, which, as detailed above, probably doesn't exist. Next, you need specific knowledge of the contract being broken. Finally, you need intentionality here: it's not "I did something that caused the contract to be broken", it's "I did something to cause the contract to be broken." Outside of somebody jumping up and down shouting "I'm tortiously interfering with your contracts," it's basically impossible to prove tortious interference.

>>jcranm+bL
> you need something like actual malice--specific knowledge of falsity

IANAL, but as I understand it the definition of malice also includes "reckless disregard for the truth". I'm sure a good lawyer can argue that not having human lawyers review, investigate, and confirm computer-generated abuse reports before sending them to outsiders constitutes a reckless disregard for the truth.

>>amyjes+Hb1
A lawyer might argue that, but it's not going to be a compelling argument. Recklessness is generally a conscious disregard of the consequences; as applied to defamation-like claims, it's generally seen as "you specifically voiced doubts about the truth". Failing to vet automated abuse reports is going to be at best negligence (and I'm dubious of even that, because given the nonbinding nature of abuse reports, it's not clear there is even a duty to candor in abuse reports that one can be negligent of), absent internal complaints about "the accuracy of these things is total shit".