[mystraline]

So, how is this not libel by Google? The claim was that you were running an "unsafe site". Its their job to prove that, and not just "black box says so".

And you have system and reputational damages.

Go for small claims suit, $5000. It'll cost more than that for their attorney to go to your jurisdiction.

[otterley]

It’s not libel. Defamation requires a false statement of fact. Claiming a website is “unsafe” is an opinion.

(IAAL, but this is not legal advice. Consult a licensed attorney for legal advice.)

[donmcronald]

The warning says something along the lines of "Dangerous Site Ahead. Attackers on [site] may trick you into doing something dangerous..."

If I'm the only one with access to the site, they're calling me an attacker and saying that I might try to steal passwords, credit card info, etc.. If they're calling me an attacker, that seems like more than an opinion. Wouldn't they have to prove I'm a bad guy if they're asserting I'm a bad guy?

[dathinab]

because google safe browsing is only supposed to display a "not safe to browse" warning when using chrome browsers (and maybe some other browsers) wich you can (theoretically) dismiss(1)

it's not meant to have any other consequences

so basically what happens is that because of hearsay of google thinking you site is not bad Radix does what normally should involve a judge order (taking down the whole domain)

(1): Yes that still would cause damages on any site with customers, but like way less and way more fixable then what happened here.

[moralestapia]

This is libel, indeed.