ASX-listed media intelligence group Isentia has confirmed that SaaS provider Meltwater has consented to the Federal Court making interlocutory orders which restrain it from continuing to misuse Isentia’s services to supply its customers with content such as press clippings.
The company’s application included evidence of a flagrant breach of previous undertakings by Meltwater to desist from the misuse of its services.
Isentia’s application last week also provided evidence that not only did Meltwater fail to cease its previous unlawful activities, but that its misuse of Isentia-supplied content had increased.
Isentia filed further evidence indicating that Meltwater has connections to an organisation located in India which appears to be systematically scraping content from Isentia’s services to effectively “free- ride” on Isentia’s technology, copyright licences and rights with publishers.
The company claims that this enabled Meltwater to provide press clippings to service Meltwater clients without having to pay any of the costs or copyright fees involved.
Isentia also alleges that Meltwater made false representations to its customers (including current and former Isentia customers) concerning Isentia’s services in breach of Australian consumer law.
“The hearing of Isentia’s application for injunctions did not need to proceed this week as Meltwater, its managing director and his wife each consented to the Federal Court making the orders sought by Isentia to restrain them from engaging in the misuse of Isentia’s services as outlined in Isentia’s application pending a final hearing of the matter,” a statement by Isentia said.
“Although these orders were on a without admissions basis, they did indicate that Meltwater wanted to avoid a contested hearing on the restraining orders. The orders made by the court effectively stop Meltwater’s access to Isentia-supplied content to service its client base from 20 June 2017.
“The matter returns to court on Friday 23 June 2017 to address an outstanding procedural matter in the interlocutory application and will otherwise proceed in the usual way to a final hearing seeking permanent restraining orders on the terms of the interlocutory orders, damages and costs.”