> When you run a business into the ground, some decisions about what you sell get taken over by courts, at the direction of your creditors.

This is true, but a lot of this "story" still seems strange, especially in light of the fact that all of the sites that appear to be associated with Cheung's new venture have been taken offline.

There are a number of well-funded players in this space, some of which might have an interest in acquiring Homejoy's data. How did the twenty-something co-founder of the failed business come to acquire the data? Did outside investors provide funding for the new venture and its acquisition of the data? Were any of those investors also investors in Homejoy? Why weren't former Homejoy customers simply informed that another company had acquired their information in an honest, transparent fashion (the way most companies handle transactions of this nature)?

It's worth pointing out that the email Cheung sent to former Homejoy customers about FlyMaids stated that FlyMaids "work[s] with Homejoy's best cleaners."

If that is true, it would appear this new venture is essentially just Homejoy reincarnated, begging questions about Homejoy's liabilities. Assuming the lawsuits against Homejoy haven't settled, I'd imagine the attorneys behind those lawsuits might have an interest in what's going on.

You're trusting that they or their acquirers will honor the contracts that they have with you. In the case of Homejoy, my assumption is that the claims/promises they made constitute a contract with their users that limits their ability to make use of your data outside the described scope. IANAL, but I think there's a reason we don't regularly hear about things like this - it's actually hard to do without getting sued.

No court or creditor can force you to rip off a competitor's site, only to festoon your version with fake coverage from the New York Times.