Thinking about sending a cease and desist or other legal inquiry to Redact Holdings?

Save yourself some time and find below our responses to common inquiries.

1. You are violating our terms of service

Redact is not bound by your terms of service. We are an Access Software Provider that specializes in filtering and removing data. According to Section 230(c)(2)(b), We have complete civil immunity for carrying out that task as a matter of Public Policy. The same protection is commonly used by antivirus programs and email spam filters. Imagine an Antivirus program having to abide by the terms of service of a malware delivery website that does not allow automated access. Or for a web email service to need permission to filter and delete emails from spammers. The internet would fall apart and this is exactly why congress gave broad immunity to Filtering software.

2: You are accessing our users' data

Redact does not have access to any users' data from any supported service. We do not store logins, passwords, or message content on any server, nor is any infrastructure in place to do so. Just like any other browser, data is stored solely on the user's device. The only third-party data that Redact may receive is limited to anonymized usage and crash/debug logs which have all personally identifiable information removed or redacted.

3: You are using our trademarks, logos or other marks without permission

Any usage of a brand's name, trademark, or logo is done so under "nominative" fair use, solely to describe our product's descriptive functionality in as limited a fashion as necessary. In addition, we explicitly disclaim in both our terms of service and inside of our product that we are not affiliated, approved, or endorsed by any other entity.

4: You are interfering with or impairing the operation of our services

Redact makes fewer requests than most common browsers for a standard deletion request, as we typically do not request CSS, Javascript, or images. In addition, Redact's 'requests per second' as a whole of our installed user base is likely less than 1/100,000th of your other, non-Redact traffic. It will be a hard sell to claim our software, which makes up such a minuscule amount of your requests per second, is causing any harm. Regardless, we have full civil immunity for this claim under Section 230(c)(2)(b) per Public Policy benefit.

5: You are encouraging our users to violate our Terms of Service

As explained previously, we have complete civil immunity from all claims which includes tortious interference. In addition, we expressly disclaim any liability in our terms of service, requiring users themselves to confirm they have permission or authorization to use our software. Please see Section 1A of our terms of service.

6: We need to make sure you are not accessing any of our users' data.

Wireshark is a free tool that monitors your network activity and will let you verify that no user data is leaving their device. You can download it at https://www.wireshark.org/

7: You are not using our preferred method for deleting data (Different API, OAuth, etc..)

We have no obligation to use any specific API or system to accomplish our filtering or deletions. However, if you feel that your company has an offering that would allow our deletions to happen more efficiently without any compromise to the end user's privacy nor our product's functionality, you can email us at [email protected] with more information.

If you wish to send us legal service, you can do so at the following address. Please note that any legal requests received by us will be made available publicly.

Redact Holdings, Inc.
3921 Alton Rd, Suite 159
Miami Beach FL 33140
United States

Please make sure to also email a copy to [email protected] as well, so we can promptly respond to your request.

We hope the above has helped you understand our service. Find below some related reading and case law.

Section 230(c)(2)(b) related cases:
Zango, Inc. v. Kaspersky
Asurvio LP v. Malwarebytes Inc
RNC v. Google
Zango v. PC Tools Pty
PC Drivers v. Malwarebytes Inc

Trademark related cases:
Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Welles
Tiffany (NJ) Inc. v. eBay, Inc
Volkswagen v. Church
Toyota Motor Sales v. Tabari
Century 21 Real Estate Corp v. Lendingtree, Inc

General Background:
The Legal Fate of Internet Ad Blocking

From: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/06/25/07-35800.pdf
“We think the statute plainly immunizes from suit a provider of interactive computer services that makes available software that filters or screens material that the user or the provider deems objectionable.

Thus, affording the safe harbor to providers of antimalware software aligns with the Congressional policy stated in § 230(b)(3). Malware may also expose users to objectionable content, including links to pornographic websites, or to software thatcan compromise the user’s privacy, computer security, or identity. Thus, the policy stated in § 230(b)(4), of removing disincentives for the development of software that filters out objectionable or inappropriate material, is served by a safe harbor for providers of malware-filtering software who otherwise fall within the terms of the statute.

Congress plainly intended to give computer users the tools to filter the Internet’s deluge of material users would find objectionable, in part by immunizing the providers of blocking software from liability.”

From: https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1552&context=wlufac
The Court found that users knowingly downloaded PC Tools' software to avoid potential malware. In doing so, the Court credited the importance of the individual user's decision to rely on PC Tool's expertise in identifying and blocking malware. PC Tools' assistance in helping users block malware, the Court reasoned, also served a broad public interest. The Court further reinforced its positive view of PC Tools' services by noting that it had taken action to significantly mitigate the amount of irreparable harm done to Zango. With all of this in mind the Court concluded that it would be agreater hardship to impose liability upon PC Tools and that "it is in the public interest to allow companies similar to [PC Tools] to be able to exercise their judgment and block potential malware applications”.

The Court reached a similar result with respect to Zango's challenge to Kaspersky's anti-malware services. Zango again alleged tortious interference with a contract, among other claims. The Ninth Circuit affirmed that 47 U.S.C. §230(c) "plainly immunizes from suit a provider of interactive computer services that makes available software that filters or screens material that the user or the provider deems objectionable. ' The Court reached this conclusion by noting that services that provide users with filtering tools and require regular updates meet the literal provisions of §230

"The less certain the district court is of the likelihood of success on the merits, the more plaintiffs must convince the district court that the public interest and balance of hardships tip in their favor.

"Tortious interference arises from either the defendant's pursuit of an improper objective of harming the plaintiff or the use of wrongful means that in fact cause injury to plaintiff's contractual or business relationships." Pleas v. City of Seattle, 774 P.2d 1158, 1163 (Wash. 1989). The Court finds it unlikely that Plaintiff will be able to demonstrate that Defendant's conduct in attempting to protect its customers from what it perceives to be potentially harmful or annoying software stems from an "improper" motive or uses any "wrongful" means.