Whirlpool in a Tube

(rather than a storm in a teacup, of course).

Thanks to the various people who sent me links to the Whirlpool controversy in Australia. It’s a textbook set of facts, with an angry plaintiff alleging a very old-world tort (injurious falsehood, in this case), a selection of annoyed customers (who aren’t being chased) and an ISP in the middle playing the role of unwilling defendant. Would probably be open-and-shut in the US, but much less so in Australia. I’m sure it will never get to court, although if it did, it would be interesting to see how the general issues about publisher liability were dealt with – the familiar Gutnick case (defamation) doesn’t really tackle that question head-on.

More coverage from Nic Suzor’s blog, the Sydney Morning Herald and ZDNet.

Oh, and here’s the statement of claim (PDF). Just in case, y’know, anyone who hasn’t read all the allegations of shoddy software and wants to catch up with them!


2 thoughts on “Whirlpool in a Tube

  1. Daithi, for an old-world tort its amazing that it still comes up in exams and practice. Detinue, Conversion, Deceit, Injurious Falsehood ….all still relevant but I’d love to know whether there’s really anyone successfully grounding cases for such torts anymore.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s