2Clix help site established as EFA condemns Whirlpool suit

Stan Beer
Thursday, 13 September 2007 06:08

Business IT - Technology

An IT consultant has set up a website to help disaffected users of accounting software supplied by 2Clix Australia Pty Ltd. Meanwhile, online civil liberties watchdog Electronic Frontiers Australia (EFA) has publicly condemned a $150,000 lawsuit lodged by 2Clix against online technology forum Whirlpool for allowing users to air their dissatisfaction with 2Clix online.

IT consultant, Robert Stanford, says he has been helping a 2Clix user solve issues with the software and set up 2clixhelp.com a little more than a week ago as a service and forum for the 2Clix user community.

"We haven't been able to get support from 2Clix required for the type of program it is and the type of problems we're having. I am an open source advocate and I've found that whenever there's a forum you can get answers and generally get good help for your problems from users of the same system," says Stanford.

Although the 2clixhelp.com site was only established on September 7, it appears to be gathering steam with an increasing number of posts detailing alleged problems with the 2Clix software, including:

- Paid reconciled PO's deleting themselves;

- Backorder sales invoice, losing shipping details;

- Trial Balance does not balance;

- Backorder Sales Invoices, losing discount;

- Division by zero when reprinting historical payslips;

and a number of other issues.

The home page of 2clixhelp.com alleges that another company and product of the same name called Platinum One is one and the same as 2Clix. The site also alleges that:

"A number of customers have been dissatisfied with numerous factors regarding 2Clix.

"In most cases, 2Clix technical support are unable to provide help to these customers, despite some customers paying in excess of $10,000 per year for technical support which gives them the privilege of:

   1. Being told yes we are aware of that problem but you will have to wait till the next version for it to be fixed.
   2. Not having their phone calls returned."

Despite the bluntness of the language on the home page, Stanford claims that 2Clix has been enthusiastic in its support of the help site.

"Their support manager said they should have thought of doing it themselves," he said.

Meanwhile, the EFA today issued a strong public condemnation of the 2Clix lawsuit against Whirlpool.

"This action is an attack on freedom of speech and the ability of consumers to engage in legitimate online criticism," said EFA Chairperson Dale Clapperton.  "One of the great benefits of the Internet is that it allows consumers to become better informed, by searching for information about products or services.  If negative comments about poor quality goods or services can't be published for fear of a lawsuit, consumers will be unable to properly inform themselves.

The lawsuit by 2Clix is for the common-law tort of "injurious falsehood", which is distinct from the more common and better-known tort of defamation.  "2Clix have sued for 'injurious falsehood' to sidestep recent national changes to defamation laws, which removed the right of most companies to sue for defamation.  Those changes were designed to ensure that individuals could engage in robust debate and criticism of companies, without the threat of a lawsuit hanging over their head.

"The Statement of Claim filed by 2Clix includes the allegation that Whirlpool "did not require proper verification of identity" before it allowed people to become registered users.

"Forum operators are not required by law to verify the identity of their users, nor is there any reasonable way for them to do so," Clapperton continued.  "Plaintiffs have, in the past, argued that forum operators were 'reckless' for not verifying the identity of their users.  Forum operators are not the identity police, and the fact that they do not verify users' identity does not make them liable for what their users say or do.

"EFA understands that Whirlpool engages in moderation of obviously inappropriate content, a practice which EFA endorses.  However, forum operators are not equipped, and should not be required, to verify the truth or falsity of criticism posted by third parties.  The ultimate responsibility for content posted by third parties lies with the person who posted it."