Australian software company sues web site over forum

THE OWNER of Australian broadband news website Whirlpool has received a writ from accounting software company 2Clix over negative comments posted by visitors on the website's forums.

The lawsuit asks for relief in the form of AU $150,000 damages for alleged "Injurious Falsehood" and injunctions forcing the removal of two forum threads, "2Clix or Not 2Clix" and "Anyone used 2Clix?", plus interest and costs.

The 2Clix complaint (pdf) quotes criticisms of the company and its software posted by people who represent themselves as current or, more often, former 2Clix customers.

The quoted forum postings express users' dissatisfactions and frustrations with 2Clix software, the company itself and its policies, from allegedly dodgy sales practices and reports of problems with software functionality and performance to complaints that 2Clix quickly locked customers out of their business records for nonpayment of maintenance charges.

This might be a nuisance lawsuit hoping for a settlement or a SLAPP lawsuit trying to suppress negative publicity, or maybe partly both, but Whirlpool is taking it seriously. Its homepage states:

"Simon Wright, the moderators and Whirlpool's legal team ask that users respect Simon's right to a fair trial and not prejudice his case. Users should refrain from doing anything that might expose Simon to contempt of court such as making statements that prejudge the outcome of the case. Please keep any comments polite and factual."

In the US, the safe harbor provisions of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 would deflect any potential liability of Whirlpool and its owner for forum postings made by others. But this is Australia, which shares a heritage of twisted libel laws with other Commonwealth countries, where truth is not a defence to a charge of libel.

We're not lawyers here, especially not Australian solicitors, so we haven't a clue as to how this might turn out except to observe that, if 2Clix filed this lawsuit in order to suppress negative publicity, it's clearly having the opposite effect. µ