4

We have a business client who is a non-payer and we've had enough.

Is it legal to share details of this non-paying business to other businesses like mine?

It wasn't mentioned anywhere in the contract that we'd share any info about them or the money owed etc.

  • 1
    As ohwilleke points out, sharing information is legal but is not normally considered a blacklist: taking further steps such as agreeing that none of you will do business with this client is a blacklist but may not be legal. You might like to refine your question. – Tim Lymington Jul 11 '17 at 16:46
7

Yes. This is legal.

The only possible liability for a truthful and accurate disclosure of fact is a defamation action (in the absence of a privacy clause in the contract) and this is truthful so it would not violate anyone's legal rights. Credit reporting agencies routinely collect such information and court actions to collect unpaid debts are also a matter of public record. Credit reporting agencies in this business also have some additional obligations (such as the obligation to remove an entry after a period of time and an obligation to present rebuttal statements from the person affected).

But, you should understand that merely publicly sharing truthful information about a factual matter is not really what a "blacklist" means. Normally, a blacklist includes an implied understanding that certain actions will be taken as a result of placement on the list rather than merely sharing information for what it is worth.

An example of a law prohibiting a true blacklist from Colorado is the following:

§ 8-2-110. Unlawful to publish blacklist

No corporation, company, or individual shall blacklist, or publish, or cause to be blacklisted or published any employee, mechanic, or laborer discharged by such corporation, company, or individual, with the intent and for the purpose of preventing such employee, mechanic, or laborer from engaging in or securing similar or other employment from any other corporation, company, or individual.

Incidentally, I'm not convinced that the statute would be constitutional if enforced under modern First Amendment jurisprudence, although one U.S. District court case from 1971 did uphold its validity in the face of a somewhat different kind of challenge. Resident Participation, Inc. v. Love, 322 F. Supp. 1100 (D. Colo. 1971).

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.