How to deal with receiving a cease-and-desist letter from Big Tech
12challenges.substack.com
12challenges.substack.com
I am not a lawyer, but I've received several C&Ds for various things over the decades. The first one scared me to death. The second and subsequent ones did not, because I understood what they were: just the company saying "I don't like what you're doing".
When I receive a C&D, the first thing I do is talk to my attorney and go over what the C&D is complaining about. If I think I'm doing something that could be legally risky (which does not automatically mean doing something actually wrong), then I change that. Otherwise, my attorney acknowledges that the C&D was received and I ignore it. If they really have a serious beef with what I'm doing, they need to actually sue me. I have yet to be sued.
* get comfortable reading legal documents, this will allow you to have more
intelligent conversations with your attorney
* don't let your attorney make your business decisions, one of their jobs is to
point out risks, one of your jobs (owner/ceo/leadership) is to figure out how
to mitigate risk but that is not the same thing as avoiding all risks
* learn to draft legalese, it will help minimize your attorney's billable hoursFor more open-ended work, it is often billed by the hour (time and expense). If the work is non-trivial, they may ask for a retainer, which is a down payment against future hourly work and expenses incurred by the firm.
Another common billing model, called contingency, is generally reserved for cases where the firm is optimistic they will be able to receive a significant monetary judgment or settlement, which they will take part of for their time and effort.
Expect to pay more than you expect to pay.
ETA: America is a "pay to play" country, and those payments are mediated by lawyers. What I mean is: enforcement of laws mostly happens via suing people, and you need to be able to pay an attorney to win that suit.
If you don’t know anyone that would be in the area of law that you’re looking for, ask for _any_ attorney recommendations, then ask those attorneys for recommendations for people in the area of law you need.
If you absolutely cannot find a lawyer through people you know (and, really, try asking people), then you can look up a lawyer referral service for your state. Most state or county bars will have some program for making referrals to lawyers. Often these will have a low-ish flat fee, which will get your a short initial consultation with a few lawyers in the relevant area of law.
For billing, it’s something to ask your lawyer, thought most lawyers will have some kind of billing program where you pay hourly for what you use, and don’t need to pay some ongoing fee just to have the lawyer as “your lawyer”. Small business that only need a lawyer for a few hours a couple times a year aren’t uncommon clients for business lawyers.
Attorneys know attorneys. I’d still recommend starting with your network, then asking those attorneys who they would recommend for the services you need. Or ask them if they know anyone that might be able to refer you.
I’m sorry, that just doesn’t sound at all credible to me.
It almost cannot be accurate by definition. There is no legal service that a hobbyist could _ever_ afford if there are <= 24 qualified specialists in the United States.
I have advice for this. Most attorneys, at least in my area, will sit down and talk with you at no charge. My advice is to take advantage of this before you have an actual issue that needs attention and talk with a few of them. Investigate them, talk to their clients if you can, ask about them with professional organizations, etc.
And then just use them for routine stuff every so often. Run contracts by them before you sign, etc. The idea is that you want to develop a relationship with them so that you and they know each other. Then, if something comes up where you really need an attorney, yours is already very familiar with you and what you're doing.
> Is there some kind of ongoing subscription cost to keep being "my attorney" or just pay per hour when you have an issue?
There is a concept of keeping an attorney "on retainer" -- which basically means prepaying for legal services. At a small scale, this isn't worth doing. Treat your attorney like your auto mechanic: keep a relationship going, go to them for your oil changes and other routine stuff, and pay by the hour. Then when you need important work done, they're primed and ready.
If you are comfortable with legal documents; have a law dictionary to understand what specific language means; and read historical case law on the topic in question, you will be well prepared to have a seat at the table with your attorneys.
Is this even at all accessible to anyone who isn't already in a major law firm? I'm assuming it requires some sort of thousand-dollar subscription to an exploitative publishing house?
Assuming you are in the US, all case law is public domain (although documents used in cases aren't)
If not, call the city or county clerk and ask, they often have access at the courthouse to PACER and friends.
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/
Put it in your deepweb toolbox.
You can also get some free credit every quarter on PACER. With the recap extension, you can contribute that to RECAP automagically.
Maybe it's cheaper to have one on retainer. How much per month, if like a normal citizen your only daily legal risks are random megacorporations threatening you?
Should everyone in the US have a lawyer on call? Should we consider it a normal tax for being a member of the US legal system? An insurance everyone signs up for like drivers insurance and life insurance? Is this only a concern for software developers?
I had a coworker at a previous job who often talked about "her family's attorney." I'm like, families have attorneys? I don't think I've talked to a lawyer once in my life.
Honestly, I think that about 1/3 of the value I get from my lawyer is the power of his letterhead.
The rest is explaining contracts to me, explaining risks and exposures of things I'm planning to do or that have been done to me, educating me about aspects of law I need to know on a daily basis, and such.
A tiny percentage is helping with large things like selling my business, negotiating major contracts, defending me against legal attacks, and that sort of thing.
I gather the version of that I did get was the middle-class version—which some others didn't get and have a similar "wait, that's just normal?" reaction as I do to the upper-middle stuff. Like 90% of that's basically credit-related—how credit cards work and how to use them, how to build credit, how to buy a house (generally with a mortgage, so, still basically a credit-related thing), that kind of stuff.
I've noticed similar things when it comes to paying others to do stuff for me. Having a house cleaner come in for the first time was fucking weird. Still is, really. I can't relax, feel like I ought to be helping. Or paying someone to do work on my house that I could do—tiling, drywalling, some light electrical, plumbing, most general home-improvement stuff. It feels gross—I don't think it does for those who grew up with that stuff being normal. I suspect it's a barrier to advancing in business, because those attitudes carry over. Delegation is weird to me. Being someone's boss is horribly uncomfortable. The notion of starting a business and hiring employees to take over stuff I've been doing feels icky and wrong, and no amount of one part of my brain telling another part to knock it off makes that go away.
Responding to a C&D letter from a Fortune 50 company, I would posit, is more like performing surgery than changing your oil. The cost of being wrong is rather high.
Though I've generally been disappointed with the legal services I've hired. Law and medicine seems like most professions, there are some really good practitioners and a lot who are mediocre but have passed the minimum required qualifications, and it's hard for an outsider to immediately spot the difference.
Five years ago I had a catastrophic ankle injury I suffered while running in Moab. Two broken bones, lots of torn ligaments, and otherwise irreparable damage without serious surgery.
I interviewed a whole bunch of surgeons before I decided where to go under the knife. And I don't remember where I got the advice, but someone told me the most important question to ask is: "How many times have you performed this specific surgery (a Maisonneuve fracture repair)?"
I eventually found the Steadman clinic and a doctor who had already performed the exact surgery I needed nearly 100 times. Everyone else's answer was less than 5. Some even answered 0. The surgical clinic I used had signed pictures of professional athletes all over the wall. I found the true specialist, and I'm very thankful that I did.
Even bad lawyers and surgeons are expensive. When you have a bet-the-business legal issue, do plenty of advanced interviewing to make sure that the one you hire has plenty of experience with the exact issue you need help with. If it's not obvious that you've found the right person, keep looking.
This is accurate, in my experience. It's what makes initially finding a lawyer (or doctor, or therapist, or auto mechanic, or etc.) a painful experience. You have to expect to go through a few before you find one that works for you.
Then, when you find one, treasure them for the pearls that they are.
That was the first and last time I ever changed my own oil.
Sometimes you do things yourself because that’s the only person you trust.
But oil changes are one of those “do it yourself once so you understand it and then let Walmart do it” kind of things.
- fill with the wrong weight oil
- not change the filter
- not tighten the new filter adequately, resulting in leaks
- install a very low quality "no-name" filter
- overfill the oil
- overtighten/strip threads on the drain plug.
- leave tools under the hood.
Oil is simple and easy enough that I just get it changed with my inspections. There are things that, even if you're competent enough to monitor and do yourself, is still better getting a second pair of eyes on. That said I wouldn't do jiffy lube or other stop and go oil shops... Too many noobs there where the chance of them effing it up is higher than myself. I once had a tire buldge when I was younger and broke AF, they replaced the wrong tire and I had to drive back to convince them they changed the wrong one (big old bubble in the sidewall), took a bit to convince them they changed the wrong one since they refused to admit fault. Thank God I took a picture before that was clear enough to place the bulb right on the text in the exact same spot.
I'm having similar concerns around my diy for some electrical and gas work. Yeah technically I can do it myself to code, but I'd rather inspect someone else's work and not deal with the liability of fucking it up myself. Just because I can do it doesn't mean I can do it to the level of a quality professional, and I'm now wealthy enough to actually get the pros and not just the journeymen. There's something about paying for quality work that just feels good. So long as you can respect the labor, it feels great and not so weird to hire others.
That said, I've had a few coding projects I've subcontracted in my home due to lack of time to those on roughly equal grounds as myself. It feels a bit weird, especially for tasks with unknown bounds but worth it for the time and schedule savings. I'd rather not wait another 6 months and spend my personal time when I have a laid off friend who just wants some bar cash.
A long time ago, I had a house cleaner come in once per week to do deep cleaning stuff. It was quite a luxury! However, I always spent a couple of hours cleaning the house in preparation for their arrival.
What I've noticed is a shift with age and wealth. When I was young and poor, I had time and energy in abundance and never hired people to do anything for me (excepting for specialized things like medical care). Now that I'm old and more comfortable, I don't have any issue hiring people to do things I can technically do myself.
I look at it this way: whether you hire someone or DIY it, you're paying something to get it done. If not money, then time and effort. I just pay in the manner that, big picture, costs me the least. When young and poor, my time and effort was worth less than actual money. Now, money is often worth less than my time and effort.
Is it worth paying $50 to have the neighborhood kid mow my lawn for me? Younger me would say absolutely not. Current me says absolutely.
You might even get an initial consult for free. You may also be entitled to a free consultation via an insurance, including collective insurances or assistance programs offered through your employer or associations that you're a member of.
Personally, I much prefer the larger firms. In general their work product, responsiveness, and timeliness is well ahead of small firms. They aren't even that much more expensive for some things. Unfortunately I don't know what the retainer $$ would be, if any, for a larger firm.
Open ended matters, like probate, starting an IP portfolio, or response to a C&D trigger a retainer.
i dont think startups should be paying a retainer. You do this only after it's worth the money - ala, you either know your domain is a gray area and is definitely going to require a lawyer.
This has nothing to do with underprivileged people or not.
(I understand folk might take particular issue with that last as part of "risk reduction", but I hope that doesn't detract from the earlier parts of the strategy)
Q: is the locksmith for you getting into other people's stuff, or keeping people out of your stuff? Wondering if we're going for a trifecta here.
But, generally speaking, a quick consult and having a lawyer write a response letter is a few hundred dollars. Let's ballpark it as $300-1000, depending on the nature of the case. Now, that's assuming that the company that sent you the C&D doesn't sue you. If they sue you and you go to court, the lawyer fees go up quite a bit and become pretty much impossible to ballpark (though I'm sure someone has tried).
Having a lawyer on retainer isn't really necessary. It might be something you do if you're a business that doesn't have a lawyer on staff, but you want access to a lawyer's time when you need it. For most regular folks, I can't imagine setting up a retainer until you need to engage a lawyer for a case and want to guarantee their time.
Also, I've been working with him for so long (including on a few nontrivial things like selling companies) that he often doesn't charge me at all for trivial things.
Another tip. Hire an attorney who will teach you how to do this effectively. A simple rule of thumb is to consult with an attorney when you don't understand something. A good attorney will walk you through the issue, explain the possible ramifications, and (most importantly!) show you the standard response(s). Next time you can do it yourself. Also, you'll ask more focused questions the next time a novel issue pops up on that topic. That also saves money.
In summary, think of your attorney as a mentor not a robot to provide legal advice.
For any functioning system, ultimately a business owner will need to decide (formally and explicitly, or informally and implicitly) what risk they're willing to accept to proceed.
What you're saying I think is that you should be informed enough to have an intelligent conversation with your attorney, and be able to make decisions on what risk they point out you're willing to take, and/or how you can mitigate it without just avoiding/shutting down?
Man I wish the leadership team at the last startup I did understood that. They were too chickenshit to do anything their lawyer cautioned them against, and as a result we took no risks and got nowhere.
They know more about how this stuff really works than you or I ever will, and you won't be able to judge what risk you're really taking without that knowledge.
But, if I were operating "without a net" like that (which I would never do!), and I really felt that the C&D was about something I wasn't doing wrong, I'd be inclined to ignore it. There's chance that you'll end up being sued, though, so you should be prepared for that possibility. That means you'll need an attorney anyway, and it will cost more than consulting one about a C&D to begin with.
That's really the key. I used to work for a very small company that happened to have an attorney as one of the owners (there were a lot of cooks in that particular kitchen!). One day he came to me with a letter from a large RAM manufacturer demanding payment for a license on some technology I don't even remember. His only question was "do we use anything they make as far as you know?"
"Nope."
"OK. It's just a fishing expedition." Balls up the letter, throws in the trash and walks away.
Now whether it's a good idea to sue without an attorney, I have no idea. I genuinely don't.
That one was so ridiculous that I didn't consult my attorney at all about it. I just told the company to sue me. I never heard from them again.
Not even sure how that happened. New lawyer? Lost paperwork?
> Dealogic: A trusted partner to top financial firms worldwide
Oh well, I probably don't need to dig deeper to know what it does then.
Edit: their about page sounds even more mafia-esque. “Dealogic connects banks and investors in the only truly global network… Firms who use Dealogic see results in increased profitability and productivity… Whether you want to analyze wallet share, execute a deal, align operating units, manage risk, or comply with regulation, there is only one answer.”
I interpret this as: a company that is successful not because it provides a service that is useful or good, but one that other companies - in this case "financial firms" - are FORCED to buy, usually through compliance or regulatory means.
Think of it like an auto insurance company advertising themselves as "your trusted partner on the roads." Yeah I guess, but it's still meaningless.
Our lightweight SaaS was focused on analytics related to share of wallet and return on capital and improving insights into client relationships. With our tool, an investment banker could perform some tasks in seconds or minutes that normally an MD expected a junior analyst to do in hours or days. Not rocket science, but useful. And not as expensive as Dealogic. I wish I could say our creation was taking the world by storm, but we haven't been involved for many years and as so often happens with acquisitions, they didn't really execute well on our original target audience and took it in another direction.
EPIC - because everyone else is using it, and boy it sure is hard for our large company to share data with a competitor's product, be a shame if a patient suffered because of it.
But at least it's only in one market, which meant the Feds could step in. https://www.healthit.gov/topic/information-blocking
- Google for creating a mention tracker I was distributing as a mac dashboard widget
- Netflix for creating a DVD barcode to Netflix queue ios app (they were trying to to antagonize their retail partners too much at the time apparently)
- Microsoft for abusing some of their early text to speech DLL's for a really crappy RSS to Audio "podcast" app (they were meant for server side telephony apps)
- LinkedIn + Salesforce for linking their data with a Chrome extension
- Hubspot for mentioning their Inbound conference and saying that my software worked with theirs
Thinking back now these are all quite old, I don't know if the companies have become more lenient or I've become more cautious.
The first time I got a letter for a trademark issue it seemed completely hostile and threatening. My lawyer said, basically, that it was no big deal and that they were in fact being pretty nice. We answered back and everything was resolved amicably. It actually turned out well because it made me realize we had not been paying enough attention and were unthinkingly referencing other brands instead of our own.
Just for clarification, do you mean soiling your underwear or dealing with a C&D?
"We will pay you $10000 if you C&D" seems like pennies to them, much less than the cost of legal fees, a nice amount of cash for a personal project that hasn't monetized yet.
Or a job
"We will give you a job offer to work on X if you C&D your own work on X"
also seems like a great strategy. If someone has already demonstrated enough talent to be a threat to your company, it seems like it would make full sense to try to hire them.
I'm honestly surprised this doesn't happen more in the gaming industry with companies buying big name mods and hiring the mod writers.
I know a lot of mod writers would probably be opposed because they actually just want to make free stuff, but some would probably launch careers off of it.
That would be incentivizing bad behavior!
There is already a reward — they’re giving you a chance to fix their problem for free before they take you to court and sue you for damages.
----
Offering payment to an individual or entity to cease an activity they should not be engaging in can introduce several disadvantages and potential legal complexities compared to a standard cease and desist letter. Here are some considerations:
- Precedent for Payment: Offering payment for the cessation of an infringing activity could set an unwanted precedent. It suggests that compliance with the law is negotiable and can be bought, potentially encouraging the same or other parties to infringe in the future with the expectation of receiving payment to stop.
- Admission of Weakness: Offering money might be interpreted as a sign that you are not confident in the legal strength of your claim. This could embolden the infringer or weaken your position in any subsequent legal proceedings.
- Contractual Obligation: If the other party accepts the offer, it creates a contractual agreement. If the infringer accepts the payment but continues the activity, or if there's a disagreement over whether the activity has ceased, you may have to engage in contract enforcement rather than straightforward infringement litigation, which could complicate matters.
- Tax and Financial Implications: The payment could have tax implications for both parties and might also affect the financial statements of a company if either party is a business.
- Mitigation of Harm: Paying the infringer doesn't address any harm that has already occurred. A cease and desist letter often includes demands for remedies or damages for past infringement, which would not typically be covered by a simple payment to stop the activity.
- Negotiation Power: Once you've put a monetary offer on the table, it can be difficult to withdraw or reduce that offer without weakening your negotiating position.
- Legal Interpretation: The offer of payment might be interpreted by the court as an acknowledgment that the infringed party is aware that their rights are not clear-cut or may even lack merit, thereby potentially undermining the legal basis for their claim.
- Public Perception: If the offer and its acceptance become public, it might be seen as a company or individual buying their way out of a legal dispute, which could affect public perception or brand reputation.
- Binding Effect: If the offer is accepted, the agreement may prevent you from pursuing legal action for any past infringement, depending on the terms of the agreement.
A C&D costs the sender almost nothing and is not the same as actually being sued. Very rarely are they serious enough to actually file something. If that does happen you should get a lawyer at that point, but doing it before is just a waste of money.
A couple years later that section had legal consequences almost derailed a major transaction involving our company. We could have avoided the whole thing by checking with our lawyer first. Moral of the story: never sign any legal document you don't understand.
The poster you are responding to just explained that most lawyers are too guarded to offer a useful evaluation of the risk, thus rendering their advice useless or low value.
Of course, you’d have to not pay them for pointless advice, or it gets expensive very quickly.
1. Get recommendations from people you trust. Talk to at least three people.
2. Pose your problem and ask them what they recommend doing. Do they listen carefully? Have they dealt with similar problems before? Do they present options in clearly understandable language that allow you to make choices? Do they respond to your questions and concerns?
3. Check their rates and ask for an upfront estimate of the hours to solve your problem. Get the best person you can afford. (Think about how much it's worth to you.)
4. Check references.
5. Switch if things don't work out.
#2 is a big deal. Don't be intimidated. This person is your interpreter of the law. If they can't explain it clearly that's their problem, not yours. Keep looking until you find the right person.
Remember that they probably have a list of hundreds or thousands of C&D's to send, and if you don't respond they would probably need to file a john doe lawsuit to get your identity from your ISP, and it's unlikely that all that effort is worth it to them.
Either way, my recommendation would be to find an attorney with industry-specific expertise to address the norms of your industry. C&Ds range from idle shake downs to definite pre-cursors to litigation. Without industry-specific knowledge, it’s hard to know which is which.
e.g. was just chatting with a fellow cease-and-desist receiver, Mohammed Shah, who finds comfort in using a different misspelling for the name of the lawyer harassing him, every time he replies
Great for morale
> The magazine often deliberately misspells the names of certain organisations, such as "Crapita" for the outsourcing company Capita, "Carter-Fuck" for the law firm Carter-Ruck, and "The Grauniad" for The Guardian (the latter a reference to the newspaper's frequent typos in its days as The Manchester Guardian). Certain individuals may be referred to by another name, for example, Piers Morgan as "Piers Moron", Richard Branson as "Beardie", Rupert Murdoch as the "Dirty Digger", and Queen Elizabeth II and King Charles III as "Brenda" and "Brian", respectively.[0]
> It doesn’t matter if you’re right. It matters if you have money, time, and willpower to go to court
There are some exceptions to this, but for probably 99% of cases, this is true
I’ve personally been on the receiving end of a litigious situation, facing a very wealthy individual. It did not go well for me, and had to swallow my pride/ego. This last bit might be the hardest thing to do
It is one thing to rationally know that the world is not fair. But when it happens to you, oh man, it’s not easy at all to take it
But one thing I don't understand every time there's a C&D story is why leave a paper trail to send the C&D to in the first place if doing something in a gray area? If I was creating some piece of software that is designed to give the middle finger to the man or facebook or whoever and/or benefit the public, I would just release the source anonymously on some random forum and it can't be stopped. Why create an official github repo with your real email and everything just to take credit?
To clarify, I mean cases like youtube vanced or the recent valve/nintendo portal mod issue, where its obvious some company might not like it, but I don't see why the projects couldn't have continued anyway if the authors didn't expose themselves to litigation. Or am I being naive about this?
People who get C&Ds must want to be known.
Many of the C&Ds came from people who were later indicted for defrauding the government, some of them in hilariously inept ways.
1. https://www.sba.gov/funding-programs/loans/covid-19-relief-o...
Honestly I wish I had used the LLC that I actually own to do the same thing. When the system is designed to promote cheating...
Maybe schooling could help with that.
100%.
I have a side hustle doing etching, engraving, and CNC-type things. The forums and groups for this kind of things are teeming with people who not just believe, but tell others, that copyright and trademark either don't apply to them for $reasons or doesn't even exist for things they found for "free" on the internet.
There's a reason why it takes several years of education and testing to become an attorney.
I’m not a lawyer, let alone a European lawyer, but I’ve heard that the drain-their-bankroll-with-spurious-motions technique that’s beloved by shithead corporations and their attorneys when they have no case isn’t practicable in most European jurisdictions. This is because even at the motion filing level, loser pays. So drowning you in garbage motions just gives your lawyer an easy payday.
Odds of the US adopting that system?
In general, not without a major change in the US attitude toward how businesses should be regulated and how individual rights protected to be more like Europe. I'll elaborate in a bit.
In specific areas of law the prevailing party can win attorney fees, but offhand I can't recall any areas where it is mandatory. It's up to the court to decide. Whether that is easy or hard depends on the area of law.
For example in patent law the statue says attorney fees can be awarded in exceptional cases, whereas in copyright law the statute just says it is at the discretion of the court.
The problem with making loser pays apply in general in US civil suits is that the US often relies on civil suits brought by individuals to enforce rights and regulations that in Europe would be enforced by a government agency.
Loser pays could discourage individuals from bringing such suits against larger more wealthy entities because a case is almost never completely open and shut.
(It would probably be impossible to weave a statute that prevents this kind of bullying while also enabling legitimate uses of C&D letters. So this is entirely fantasy.)
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_publ...
I had written a small shareware app called JazAwake. It was designed to stop the Iomega Jaz drive from spinning down every two minutes or so.
They did not know who I was but the stakes were instantly very high. If they filed a suit, they would uncover my identity, realize I worked for them, and terminate my employment.
To make matters worse, I was relatively sure the demands were impossible to meet. They requested I stop distributing the program AND remove all traces of it from the internet.
Similar to the linked article, I spent 9-months responding to demand letters. To my own surprise, I was eventually successful in removing it from the internet. I had to send my own demand letters (which were nicer) to every website owner who mentioned or linked to a copy of the app.
Usually the terms of service you sign up to make it clear which jurisdiction disputes would be adjudicated in
For me, as a UK citizen/resident it was Ireland. Which is great since I've never been there, but I've heard their courtrooms are lovely in the springtime
Looking back, these companies can send these things out for no cost, looking for you to mess up by replying. If they want to sue you, don't worry, it will happen.
As my attorney once opined: if they really want to sue you, the first thing you'll hear from them will be about the lawsuit they filed, not a C&D.
It is certainly true that anyone can respond to a C&D letter. But whether you can do so without doing more harm than good is another question.
1. Ignore the letter: not recommended, as that will likely end in a lawsuit that you'll probably lose.
2. Comply: maybe not with everything (like if they ask you to do ridiculous things like give them a look at your finances), but at least stop doing what you're doing that triggered the whole thing in the first place.
3. Engage a lawyer and fight: but you're probably going to lose, unless you're independently wealthy, and/or can rally some legal-aid services that specialize in digital rights, as well as journalists and other powerful entities to help you.
And in all cases, if it's an entity like Meta, they've likely already disabled your existing accounts and banned you, and you'll never get them back.
Ask an attorney to know for sure, but if they have no case and are just being bullies, don't cave in.
That's dangerous advice, if you have anything to lose, and the C&D isn't obviously complete nonsense. Your adversary's lawyer may have causes of action that he chooses not to disclose just now.
1) Good problem to have. 2) If they had something, they wouldn't threaten you, they'd just act.
It's the risk/reward ratio. Unless it's worth reacting to, file 13 that shit.
So I wouldn't see a C&D as a guaranteed sign that they aren't willing to sue, but the threshold for "want you to stop and are willing to sue for it" is much, much, MUCH higher than the threshold for "eh, I'll send a C&D and see if this makes it go away, if not, not worth it".
It can scary to receive one, but once you unwind what the accusing party has to gain from it, you realize it has as much teeth as a tweet.
outside of official APIs or services
If they really want you to stop, e.g. because you're putting their core business at risk, they might consider it, of course. But they won't do it for random bullshit. They do have infinite resources to crush you - but even they don't have enough resources to do it to everyone who ignores their C&D.
Also, I would expect the likelihood of getting sued (by a company that's acting rationally - small businesses where you've personally pissed off the owner can be different) depends on whether they can achieve their goal. If for example their goal is to keep you from publishing details about a security vulnerability and public embarrassment, the motivation to sue you is likely to go down once the vulnerability is public and their behavior has been reported in the tech press, and continuing to press it will just continue to the Streisand effect.
This is why we need some version of Loser Pays law... Especially when there is a huge resource imbalance like a FB suing a lone dev.
A C&D letter? Nah, you're 100% safe (legally) to throw that in the garbage.
Of course, there's always a possibility that the party sending it follows through on the at-least-implicit threat of litigation.
Fortunately, I didn't need the domain, since I didn't want this headache or expense. (The domain name was a pun on "Orkut", intended for a site critiquing the emerging ridiculous influencer behavior, and I'd guess it was protected speech, but I never got around to making the site.)
But the experience didn't seem very Googley to me, so I initiated a domain name transfer to the Stanford email address of one of their founders, then told the nastygram people, so maybe they could have a talk about "Don't Be Evil".
They sent the C&D to my employer which made everything much more complex. I usually would have ignored it, but my employer's legal department was on my back about it, so I renamed the project to bitstring. For years my project was still top of Google search for "bitmatch". (I tried it now and I notice it's a different, Rust project, so the guy still didn't win in the end.)
I would love to get a lawyer's take on that, although I guess it would differ by jurisdiction - California and Ireland are probably the two key ones for most big tech
I don't do anything that could even be perceived as antagonistic towards Facebook. But I imagine it's something I could do. I don't have a Facebook account so I don't care if I get banned. But I do use WhatsApp. I could live just fine without it. but would/could a ban include a ban from Whatsapp? I guess I naively assume they don't know enough from my WhatsApp usage to link it to my identity. But of course a phone number is as close unique identity as they come.
Basically take everything you know about Julian Assange and combine it with Christopher Nolan's Batman movies.
Thank god for crypto.
[Indymedia was an open news collective, with a strong anarchist-socialist leaning]
Our "collective" had no formal membership, and no assets. We were all just volunteers who valued the platform and did some work to help out. These emails were always addressed to "To Whom It May Concern". Pseudonymity was the norm in Indymedia, and I was completely ignorant about the IRL identity of most colleagues that preferred to be pseudonymous.
They'd usually be complaining about Indymedia reports of the activities of some small businessman, often a builder. It would often be part of a campaign, i.e. there would be more than one article, by different people. So we'd collate the articles, and do web-searches; if the complaint appeared to refer to something potentially libellous; or involved some crime like inciting violence; or violated our posting T&C, like trolling, conspiraloon, or agent-provocateur, then we'd hide the article or comment; otherwise the site would have been deluged in spam. Hidden articles and comments didn't appear in lists. We had no one-button method for removing an article completely, we had to blank the article in the database. We even published a link to a page where you could view all articles and comments; none of these C&Ds ever referred to a hidden article.
We never replied to any of these C&Ds. We (or I) never hid an article or comment as the result of reading a C&D; I never thought the C&D had any merit. We took the "Ignore" route, and never suffered any adverse consequences; not even follow-ups.
So I don't share the author's opinion that you should never adopt the Ignore route. Perhaps we got lucky, but I'd have taken these messages more seriously if they had named me.
FTR, IANAL.
Louis has been on the frontlines of this unjustly lonely battle against big evil megacorps (META specifically) for the last few years.
If any lawyers are here that care about digital rights as coders then please reach out to louis because a coalition is needed to fight against C&Ds against independent, OSS, interop developers and their users.
Thank you Louis for writing this, I wish I saw this last year before nuking my OSS project out of an abundance of abject fear that this $800bn megacorp could ruin my life for what amounts to pocket change. This experience still hurts till this day.
RIP & Long Live Aaron Swartz