They seem to have neatly "bifurcated" that issue: Whereas their actual terms say:
businesswire.com
"Business Wire's members are solely responsible for the accuracy and authenticity of the content of their releases. All of the news releases distributed by Business Wire are protected by copyright laws, trademark and service mark registrations and other intellectual property rights, laws, regulations, treaties and conventions…
Requests to copy, circulate or further distribute a single news release that has been previously distributed by Business Wire (other than copying for the limited purpose of an individual user's reference) should be submitted to the contact person identified in the release…"
…the 'bifurcated' version, as evidenced by this suit, may plausibly say:
"Business Wire's members are solely responsible for the accuracy and authenticity of the content of their releases if they are companies promoting scam stocks. If they are from entities opposed to investment scams, then Business Wire will do everything in our power to litigate them into potential bankruptcy.
Requests to copy, circulate or further distribute a single news release that has been previously distributed by Business Wire should be submitted to the contact person identified in the release if from a company promoting scam stocks. If the release in question is from an entity opposed to investment scams, Business Wire will be happy to rewrite the terms, and present them to The Court as if they were the original terms, in an effort to financially break said entity."
Want proof? Business Wire submits to Court one interpretation of its terms, yet this is not the version to which its members sign for, in the Membership form:
webnode.com
"Business Wire claims in its complaint that it requires, “as a condition of distributing any press release over its wire service and on its website, that the person or entity submitting the press release warrant the factual content in the materials submitted for distribution by Business Wire is true and accurate.” (Complaint, p. 4, lines 5-8; see also p. 11, paragraph 55.)
However, that is not what the agreement states. Business Wire attached as Exhibit C what it states is a copy of the defendants' agreement with Business Wire. (Complaint, p. 4, lines 12-13.) Nowhere in the agreement, as alleged in the complaint, are the words “as a condition of distribution.” Additionally, at no point did Business Wire verbally ask the defendants to warrant the factual content of the press release as a condition of distribution. What that agreement—which is a form agreement created by Business Wire--actually says, in pertinent part, is that “...I (we) warrant that I am (we are) solely responsible for the accuracy, originality and factual content of all material submitted to Business Wire for distribution.” The agreement goes on to provide an indemnification in favor of Business Wire. Bill Ulrich has stated that he understood this to mean only that Business Wire was not taking responsibility for the content, not that the persons submitting the press release were warranting its accuracy to Business Wire.
Any ambiguity in that agreement, of course, must be construed against its author, Business Wire. (California Civil Code Section 1654.) Business Wire therefore cannot prove that it is probable that it will win this cause of action."
Note that plenty of fraudulent companies use Business Wire for their release, and yet this "question of terms" has never come up. Only with Webnode, an April Fool's educational tool for the good of any potential investor. |
