A web developer posted a payment shaming message on their client's site

Legality of the payment‑shaming message

• Strong disagreement over whether this is defensible: some say “no money, no stuff” and if the client hasn’t paid, it’s not “their” site yet; others argue this is not simple suspension but “defacing” a live site.
• Several comments suggest it could be framed as vandalism, reputational harm, or even a Computer Misuse Act issue in the UK if not explicitly allowed in the contract.
• Others counter that, in the UK, publicly stating true facts about a business transaction is generally lawful if it’s not malicious, not breaching contract, and not exposing private communications.

Professionalism and reputational impact

• Many view this as highly unprofessional and a red flag to future clients, even if the developer is morally or legally in the right.
• Counterpoint: some argue that only bad actors need to worry—if you pay your bills, this behavior doesn’t threaten you and can even signal the developer won’t tolerate abuse.
• Several commenters say they’d avoid hiring someone who publicly airs grievances like this.

Alternatives: suspension, contracts, and leverage

• Common recommendation: simply suspend service or show a neutral “temporarily unavailable” / generic error instead of a blame‑assigning banner.
• Some suggest “playing dumb” (“site is down; to fix it I need payment”) or blaming expired credits.
• Multiple freelancers mention contract clauses retaining IP rights until final payment, or ToS that explicitly allow shutting down hosted services for non‑payment; these have been effective leverage without public shaming.

Control over domains, email, and hosting

• Practitioners note that taking down a website often doesn’t get attention; cutting off hosted email does, but its legality and ethics are debated, especially when DNS or mail is third‑party.
• Distinction emphasized between ceasing unpaid services versus actively sabotaging or altering assets you don’t clearly own.

Client solvency and due diligence

• Thread notes the client company is dissolved / in liquidation, which may explain non‑payment but doesn’t excuse ignoring the developer.
• Some argue contractors should do basic checks (e.g., accounts filings, credit) and adjust terms (upfront payment, shorter net terms) for obviously risky clients.

Courts vs public shaming

• Dispute over remedies: some insist “normal professionals” use courts or statutory demands (particularly easy in the UK); others recount years‑long, expensive litigation as a warning that legal routes can be worse than the debt.
• Social shaming is seen by some as faster and cheaper; others call it petty, ineffective at scale, and corrosive to professionalism.