Terms of Service
Effective Date: 26 December 2025
1. Introduction
Legal Effect, International Reach, and Corporate Shielding
a. Contractual Consent Across Jurisdictions
The phrase “By accessing or using this Platform, you agree to be bound by these Terms” establishes express contractual consent, which is universally recognised under: Common law (UK, Commonwealth, South Asia) Civil law systems (EU jurisdictions). International private law principles (lex contractus). This consent mechanism is essential for cross-border enforceability, especially where users may never register but still consume or submit content. International protection value. Prevents claims of implied permission. Supports enforcement against bad-faith actors. Enables Book My Lawyers Ltd to demonstrate responsible platform governance
b. Global User Classification – Risk Containment
By explicitly covering: Visitors. Contributors. Whistleblowers. Journalists. Researchers. The terms close liability gaps often exploited in media-law disputes.This is particularly important under: Defamation law (UK, Bangladesh, Commonwealth). Digital intermediary liability doctrines. UN Guiding Principles on Business & Human Rights (UNGPs). The clause prevents arguments that a user “was not bound” because they were not formally registered.
c. Corporate Stewardship Under Book My Lawyers Ltd (Bangladesh)
Placing LegalScandal.com under Book My Lawyers Ltd (Bangladesh) provides corporate personality and legal insulation, recognised under: Bangladesh Companies Act International corporate-veil doctrines. Cross-border service-provider jurisprudence. This structure: Separates platform operations from individuals. Limits personal liability of editors, contributors, and analysts. Enables lawful contracting with hosts, insurers, and advisers. From an international law perspective, this strengthens the platform’s standing as a legitimate corporate-operated media entity, not an anonymous activist outlet.
2. Nature of the Platform
Functional Definition as an International Law Safeguard
This section is the most critical liability-containment clause in the entire Terms.
a. Classification as an “Independent Public-Interest Legal Accountability and Investigative Platform”
This wording is strategically aligned with protections under: Article 19, ICCPR (freedom of expression) UN Special Rapporteur standards on investigative journalism. European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) jurisprudence. Commonwealth media-law precedents. It deliberately avoids classification as: A legal service provider. A judicial or quasi-judicial authority. A regulatory or enforcement body. This distinction is essential to avoid: Bar-council regulation. Unauthorised practice of law allegations. State claims of “parallel justice systems”
b. Permitted Activities – Narrow, Defensible Scope
The three listed activities are carefully calibrated:
Publishes analysis, commentary, and investigative reporting
Protected globally as journalistic expression.Reviews information related to legal misconduct and institutional accountability
Falls within public-interest scrutiny recognised by international courts.Supports transparency, rule of law, and public awareness
Aligns with: UN anti-corruption norms, Transparency International standards. OSCE media-freedom principles. Together, these functions: Establish legitimacy, Activate journalistic and public-interest exemptions. Reduce exposure to censorship or shutdown claims
c. Explicit Exclusions – International Liability Firewall
The “does not” clauses are legally decisive: Does not act as a court, tribunal, or law-enforcement authority. Neutralises accusations of usurping state power. Does not provide legal representation or legal services. Protects Book My Lawyers Ltd from unauthorised practice of law claims across jurisdictions. Does not issue binding legal findings or judgments. Prevents enforceability disputes and contempt-of-court allegations. These exclusions are particularly important in: Bangladesh and South Asian jurisdictions. Authoritarian or hybrid regimes. States with restrictive media laws
d. Informational, Journalistic, and Civic Purpose Clause
The statement that “All content is provided for informational, journalistic, and civic purposes only” activates multiple layers of protection: Journalistic privilege and exemptions, Intermediary safe-harbour doctrines. Freedom-of-expression proportionality tests. Anti-SLAPP defence frameworks (where applicable)
It also: Limits reliance-based civil liability, Protects against claims of professional negligence, Reinforces the platform’s non-advisory status
International Law & Governance Assessment
Strengths
Strong ICCPR Article 19 alignment, Clear separation from legal practice, Corporate shielding via Book My Lawyers Ltd. Defensible public-interest positioning. Suitable for hosting, insurance, and donor due diligence
Residual Risks (Managed)
State pressure in restrictive jurisdictions, Defamation litigation attempts, Mischaracterisation as “activism” (mitigated by neutrality language)
3. Compliance with Laws
a. User-Side Legal Responsibility Transfer (Core Liability Shield)
The clause “Users agree to comply with…” establishes a clear legal transfer of responsibility from the platform to the user. This is critical under: International intermediary-liability doctrines.Media-law jurisprudence in the UK, EU, South Asia. UN Guiding Principles on Business & Human Rights (UNGPs). Its legal effect: Creates an affirmative contractual obligation on users. Shields the platform from claims of facilitation or endorsement. Demonstrates good-faith compliance to regulators and courts. For Book My Lawyers Ltd (Bangladesh), this clause is essential to show that the company does not direct or control unlawful conduct, but merely provides a lawful forum.
b. Layered Legal Coverage (Defensive Redundancy)
The listed legal categories are intentionally cumulative:
Local, national, and international laws
Covers conflict-of-law scenarios, Protects against extraterritorial claims. Supports cross-border enforceability.
Data protection and privacy laws (including GDPR)
Signals compliance readiness to EU regulators and hosting providers. Supports journalistic-exemption balancing tests. Reduces exposure to sanctions, takedowns, or funding blocks
Court orders, confidentiality obligations, reporting restrictions
Crucial for investigative platforms dealing with: Sub judice matters. Gag orders, Contempt-of-court risks, Protects the platform from secondary liability for user misconduct
Anti-defamation, anti-incitement, and public-order laws
Addresses the most common litigation vectors against accountability platforms, Reduces SLAPP-style exposure, Aligns with ECtHR and Commonwealth proportionality standards, This layered structure ensures that if one legal defence is challenged, others remain intact.
c. Restricted-Jurisdiction Clause (International Risk Firewall)
The sentence “Accessing or using the Platform in jurisdictions where it is restricted is solely the user’s responsibility” is a critical international-law safeguard.
Its functions: Protects the platform from liability under restrictive or authoritarian regimes, Prevents allegations of aiding circumvention of national laws. Aligns with global digital-rights jurisprudence on user autonomy. This is particularly important for: Investigative journalism platforms. Legal-accountability reporting. Cross-border whistleblowing contexts. It strengthens the platform’s defence in diplomatic, regulatory, and hosting disputes.
4. User Responsibilities
a. Prohibited Conduct – Clear, Enforceable Boundaries
The “You agree that you will not” formulation creates bright-line behavioural rules, which courts and regulators consistently favour over vague standards. Each prohibition is strategically selected: False, misleading, or fabricated information, Mitigates misinformation and defamation risk, Protects editorial credibility, Hate speech, threats, harassment, or incitement. Aligns with international human-rights norms, Protects against public-order enforcement actions. Promotion of violence or unlawful activity. Shields the platform from criminal-law exposure. Reinforces non-violent, lawful civic purpose
Impersonation of individuals, officials, or institutions, Prevents fraud and reputational harm. Protects against institutional misrepresentation claims. Interference with judicial processes or ongoing proceedings, Essential for legal-accountability platforms, Reduces contempt-of-court and obstruction risks. Collectively, these rules demonstrate good-faith governance and responsible editorial oversight.
b. Evidence, Lawfulness, and Good-Faith Standard
The requirement that submissions be “lawful, evidence-based, and made in good faith” is one of the strongest protective elements.
Its legal value:Discourages malicious or reckless allegations, Supports defamation-law defences. Aligns with investigative-journalism ethics (IFJ, UNESCO standards) Justifies moderation or rejection decisions, This clause strengthens the platform’s standing with: Courts and regulators, Journalistic bodies, Civil-society and donor institutions
5. User-Generated ContentBy submitting content, you confirm that: You have the legal right to share it. It does not unlawfully violate privacy, confidentiality, or court orders. It does not knowingly defame individuals or organisations. You grant LegalScandal.com a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free licence to review, store, analyse, edit, and publish submitted content for journalistic, research, and public-interest purposes. You retain ownership of your content.
6. Editorial Independence & Moderation
Clause: Full editorial discretion; may remove/decline/suspend; decisions protect legal compliance, journalistic integrity, source safety, public interest; decisions final.
Why this is a core international-law protection
Freedom of expression (international) supports editorial autonomy
International standards treat editorial judgment as part of the freedom to “seek, receive and impart information… regardless of frontiers.” OHCHR+1
That means the platform’s right to publish or decline content is a protected editorial function—especially for public-interest reporting.
“Public interest + integrity + safety” are globally defensible moderation objectives
These objectives map directly onto the legitimate aims that international law recognises for limiting harmful expression (rights/reputation of others, public order, etc.), and the requirement that restrictions be lawful, necessary, and proportionate. OHCHR+2mediadefence.org+2
This makes the moderation rationale harder to attack as “arbitrary” or “political”.
Finality language strengthens operational resilience
“Decisions are final” prevents platform paralysis from repetitive challenges (a common tactic in high-conflict reporting). It is also consistent with the idea that private publishers are not obligated to publish everything submitted. (The key is pairing finality with clearly stated objectives—your clause does that.)
Why it also protects Book My Lawyers Ltd (Bangladesh)
It shows governance control and risk management: you are not passively hosting anything; you apply editorial standards. That reduces downstream liability arguments that the company “allowed” unlawful content to spread unchecked (especially in defamation and contempt contexts).
One important compliance nuance (recommended)
Keep your discretion broad, but ensure your site also has a Content Policy explaining evidence standards, redaction rules, and safe handling of sensitive info. This strengthens the platform’s “responsible publisher/intermediary” posture under modern digital governance norms.
7. No Legal or Professional Advice
Clause: Not legal advice; not professional/regulatory guidance; consult qualified professionals; reliance at own risk.
Why this is essential for a legal-accountability platform
Prevents “unauthorised practice of law” exposure
Many jurisdictions treat legal advice as a regulated activity. A strong non-advice disclaimer helps keep LegalScandal.com firmly in journalistic/informational territory rather than “legal services”.
Blocks reliance-based civil claims
Users sometimes claim they acted on content and suffered harm. A reliance disclaimer reduces negligence/misrepresentation pathways—especially where content involves allegations, ongoing proceedings, or interpretations that can change.
International proportionality logic supports this boundary
International law recognises that expression comes with “special duties and responsibilities,” and that restrictions/limits can be justified to protect rights and reputations. OHCHR+1
Your disclaimer signals that the platform takes those responsibilities seriously, reinforcing legitimacy.
Why it matters under GDPR/UK GDPR journalism rules
If the platform processes personal data for journalistic/public-interest reporting, the legal system expects balancing between data protection and expression. A clear “informational/journalistic” framing supports that balancing posture. GDPR+1
8. Source & Whistleblower Considerations
Clause: Confidential/anonymous submissions may be allowed; anonymity not guaranteed; limited legal disclosure obligations; users submit at own risk; encouraged to understand whistleblower laws.
Why this clause is strategically correct (and legally necessary)
Truthful risk disclosure is a liability shield
Promising anonymity absolutely is dangerous: courts, regulators, or data breaches can force disclosure. Saying “cannot be guaranteed” prevents misrepresentation claims and sets realistic expectations.
It aligns with whistleblower protection frameworks
EU whistleblower standards emphasise confidentiality of identity and protection against retaliation, while allowing legal systems to set conditions and procedures. EUR-Lex+2European Commission+2
Your clause is consistent with this: protect where possible, disclose only under lawful obligation, and warn users to understand legal pathways.
Source protection is an internationally recognised pillar of journalism
Council of Europe standards specifically stress the importance of protecting journalistic sources as fundamental to freedom of journalism and the public’s right to information. Council of Europe+1
Even though Bangladesh is outside the Council of Europe, these principles are widely used as persuasive international best practice (helpful with global hosts, partners, and cross-border disputes).
GDPR / Article 85 “journalistic purpose” balancing
Under GDPR Article 85, EU/EEA states must reconcile data protection with freedom of expression for journalistic purposes through exemptions/derogations where necessary. GDPR+1
That framework supports strong confidentiality practices—but it still doesn’t create a guarantee of secrecy in all cases, so your “not guaranteed” language remains correct.
and disclosure laws.
9. Data Protection & Privacy
Use of the Platform is also governed by our Privacy Policy, which forms part of these Terms.We apply reasonable safeguards but do not guarantee absolute security and are not liable for: Third-party security breaches. User-side security failures
10. Limitation of Liability
To the maximum extent permitted by law: LegalScandal.com is not liable for indirect, incidental, or consequential damages. We are not responsible for reliance on published or user-submitted content. Use of the Platform is at your own risk
11. Indemnification
You agree to indemnify and hold harmless LegalScandal.com, its operators, editors, contributors, and affiliates from claims arising from: Your use of the Platform. Your submitted content. Violations of these Terms or applicable laws
12. International Use & Jurisdiction
The Platform operates globally. Governing law shall be determined by applicable conflict-of-law principles. Courts with lawful jurisdiction may hear claims. Mandatory consumer protections under local law are not limited
13. Suspension & Termination
We may suspend or terminate access without notice if: Laws or these Terms are violated. Platform integrity or safety is threatened. Authorities lawfully require compliance. Users may stop using the Platform at any time.
14. Changes to Terms
We reserve the right to update these Terms.
Continued use after updates constitutes acceptance.
15. Severability
If any provision is held invalid or unenforceable, the remaining provisions remain in full force and effect.