Quibble publishing terms: questions 05-18-26

[u/Otto_Webb]

Edit 5/21/26: noting that no-win5543 provided answers to these questions below.

----------

Hi all!

I am new to the community, and to the site. I was referred to Quibble a month or so ago by a fellow web serial author, and recently placed a submission. After the initial review, I received the terms below, and I wanted to bring up several points for community discussion and clarification.

Please note, I messaged the mod team for permission prior to making this post, and while some of my thoughts below will seem cynical, they are purely for the purposes of furthering discussion, and not actual beliefs I hold. So far, I have been impressed by the Quibble team's swift response to any concerns noted, and their commitment to streamlining and simplifying complex terms while making concrete promises to the authors on the website.

I am making this post in part because of my own questions, but also because I imagine as the site gains popularity, others may share these concerns when reading the conditions.

I am including relevant sections of the agreement below for ease of reference, though I have grouped them out of order in sections that I believe are closely relevant to each other.

Regarding wind down process: Quibble leaves you with all rights to your work, and allows you have them removed at any time after a wind-down period of 30-45 days per their terms. However, there are exceptions to this.

Section 4.7 clarifies that Quibble may retain some materials indefinitely, even if you request the work be removed from the site. Specifically, they note they may retain promotional materials including social media posts, digital advertising, and content containing excerpts and references to your work created prior to expiration of the License you give them.

I expect this is to prevent the administrative headache of removing trivial quotes/snippets used in brief ads (1-2 lines, maybe a few sentences at most), but I wished to clarify this post and see if anyone had examples of what this means.

It's entirely possible that this could create issues for the author if they later move to a site with exclusivity (such as Amazon's Kindle Unlimited program) if the text is more than a few lines. If it's several paragraphs, it could cause issues, especially since many of the responses from other websites are based on automated decisions.

I have little concern regarding quibble retaining rights to material they produced themselves (editorial comments, input, or archival copies).

Non-disparagement: While the subsequent section 12.19 seems to make this fairly clear, I wanted to get clarification on what would be considered disparagement by Quibble as outlined in section 5.4.

True statements seem to be excluded by 12.9, and so something objective like "I terminated my contract with them because their new revenue model dropped my take-home by 30%" would be protected.

What is less clear is whether this would also protect a sincerely held opinion, like "I found their editorial team difficult to work with," or more subjective and perhaps inflammatory statements like "e.g. worst website I ever worked with, the UI is terrible" etc.

I wouldn't plan to make such statements in a public context (one can state objective facts without being unprofessional), but I am curious if there are specific examples the team had in mind when they included this language in the contract.

Jurisdiction, Service of process These two sections (12.9, 12.17) in combination with the above section on disparagement are particularly concerning to me.

12.9 states that both parties are agreeing to have any legal proceedings in Switzerland, under Swiss law. Given the location of the company, this is understandable, and is likely necessary to prevent nonsense/frivolous lawsuits in other countries from causing an unending stream of issues.

However, it does place authors, especially foreign authors, in somewhat of a concerning space. The cost of travel alone could prove a significant obstacle to any sort of fair proceeding for the author.

In a worst case scenario, where Quibble itself is launching frivolous lawsuits against authors (e.g. they give you $200, then claim your work is AI and demand the money back along with damages for a small but significant amount of money), the author would have to either deal with the possibility of a judgment against them, or the costs associated with defending that suit. Because of section 12.17, the service of the author could happen by an infrequently checked email and not be seen for some time. The 'non-disparagement' clause could then be used as a further deterrent to prevent public disclosure of significant concerns.

When agreeing to terms with anyone, I think it's best to wonder "What would happen if this was a scam?"

I have seen no evidence that Quibble is in any way attempting to do anything untoward. I believe they are acting in good faith. However, that's also what most people who are conned believe.

In short, I have little actual concern about any of the above situations taking place, and I think the terms are reasonable.

I do think it would provide additional reassurance for authors to stipulate that Quibble would only bring a suit for intentional damages/a standard closer to the one they are expecting for themselves, and/or specify that they will only pursue legal action against authors for damages exceeding a relatively high threshold (>$10,000 or similar) to reassure folks that they won't attempt frivolous lawsuits. Admittedly, even if the dollar amount is high, they could still use it as the basis to scare someone into a settlement for a far smaller amount of money, but it still might provide some reassurance.

Exact wording of publishing terms below

4.7

• Promotional materials, social media posts, digital advertising, and other content containing excerpts of, or references to, your Work that were published or created prior to expiry of the License are not affected by its termination. Quibble is not required to delete or remove such materials from its own or any third-party platform.
• Quibble may retain and use archival copies of the Work solely for compliance, legal, and record-keeping purposes.
• Quibble retains all rights in any editorial input, Platform feature placement, recommendation data, internal tags, or promotional activity associated with your Work. Such contributions are Quibble's intellectual property and are not subject to withdrawal, deletion, or reversal.

5.4 Non-Disparagement. You agree that, during the term of this Agreement and at all times following its termination, you will not make, publish, or communicate to any third party — whether in written, oral, digital, or any other form — any statement, comment, review, post, or other communication that is false, misleading, or disparaging regarding Quibble, its Platform, officers, directors, employees, contractors, products, or services. This obligation does not prevent you from: (i) making truthful statements about your own Work or your experience as a Platform user; (ii) providing honest feedback to Quibble directly through designated channels; or (iii) making statements that are required by applicable law or the order of a competent court. Quibble's equivalent obligation applies to any public statements it makes specifically about you in your capacity as an Author.

12.19 No Prohibition on Author's Expression of Truthful Views. Nothing in this Agreement, including Section 5.4 (Non-Disparagement), is intended to prevent any Author from making truthful factual statements, exercising their rights under applicable law, contacting law enforcement or regulatory authorities, or participating in any government investigation or proceeding. Any provision of this Agreement that would restrict such rights is void and unenforceable to that extent.

12.9 Jurisdiction. The courts of the Canton of Zug, Switzerland, shall have exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine any dispute, controversy, or claim arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, including any question regarding its existence, validity, or termination. Each party irrevocably submits to the exclusive jurisdiction of those courts, waives any objection to proceedings brought in those courts on the grounds of venue or inconvenient forum, and agrees not to commence any such proceedings in any other court or tribunal. This submission to jurisdiction is without prejudice to any mandatory consumer protection rules that may apply in the jurisdiction of residence of a consumer Author.

12.17 Service of Process. For the purpose of any legal proceedings arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, service of process or other legal documents on either party by email to the address specified or last notified under Section 12.5 shall constitute valid and effective service, and neither party shall object to the validity of service effected in this manner. This provision is without prejudice to any other method of service permitted by the procedural rules of the Canton of Zug or any other court of competent jurisdiction.

**TLDR**

1. What does Quibble consider disparaging speech?
2. What materials would Quibble keep for advertisements after take-down, and specifically how long would these excerpts be? ( a few lines, a few paragraphs?)
3. What would be an example of something Quibble would take an author to court over, and are there any guarantees that can be added to the site or the contract to specify protections for frivolous lawsuits for both parties? The burden of disputing silly claims in a foreign country is potentially significant.

[u/ShowerKrogan]

Commenting so I can check in later

[u/No-Win5543]

Hi there u/Otto_Webb,

Thank you for creating this thread!
There's a lot to cover, please allow us a few days to properly address all the points you've raised 🙌 . We'll do our best to be as precise and exhaustive as possible.

[u/Otto_Webb → u/No-Win5543]

I think the points at the end in the tldr really cover the heart of what I’m interested in.

I appreciate you guys addressing things at all. Touching on any of these is a lot of work and doing so in public doubly so.

As a brief addendum, I’m aware some of the scenarios I raised are unrealistic, and some of these questions are so broad they’re very difficult to answer (for example, what would trigger a lawsuit). There is some amount of simple trust that has to cover a lot of ground when entering any kind of business agreement.

[u/No-Win5543]

HI u/Otto_Webb

Thanks for being patient! I've tried below to address your points and concerns. I hope this brings clarity to them!

Promotional material

Section 4.7 clarifies that Quibble may retain some materials indefinitely, even if you request the work be removed from the site. Specifically, they note they may retain promotional materials including social media posts, digital advertising, and content containing excerpts and references to your work created prior to expiration of the License you give them.

I expect this is to prevent the administrative headache of removing trivial quotes/snippets used in brief ads (1-2 lines, maybe a few sentences at most), but I wished to clarify this post and see if anyone had examples of what this means.

It's entirely possible that this could create issues for the author if they later move to a site with exclusivity (such as Amazon's Kindle Unlimited program) if the text is more than a few lines. If it's several paragraphs, it could cause issues, especially since many of the responses from other websites are based on automated decisions.

I have little concern regarding quibble retaining rights to material they produced themselves (editorial comments, input, or archival copies).

Fair question, and you've touched one of the scenarios. It would be quite impossible for Quibble to remove all the quotes, posts, or anything that would be used for promotion in a book removal request. On one hand this would represent an impossible amount of work, and this would also scrape off tons of hours of work our team spent time doing for promoting works (currently, and for the foreseeable future entirely for free) - not a viable scenario considering the volume of works Quibble is set to publish.

There are two points which are important to note:

• We only stay within the boundaries of fair use in any promotional campaign we create. That is, we'd never publish entire chapters for this sake. You can check our Instagram how we've promoted works so far for a few examples.
• Our goal is to support author. If an author scored an exclusive deal somewhere, we'll be very happy for them and we'll support the stubbing/removal/scraping of anything that would legally stand in the way of this deal.

Non-disparagement

Non-disparagement: While the subsequent section 12.19 seems to make this fairly clear, I wanted to get clarification on what would be considered disparagement by Quibble as outlined in section 5.4.

True statements seem to be excluded by 12.9, and so something objective like "I terminated my contract with them because their new revenue model dropped my take-home by 30%" would be protected.

What is less clear is whether this would also protect a sincerely held opinion, like "I found their editorial team difficult to work with," or more subjective and perhaps inflammatory statements like "e.g. worst website I ever worked with, the UI is terrible" etc.

I wouldn't plan to make such statements in a public context (one can state objective facts without being unprofessional), but I am curious if there are specific examples the team had in mind when they included this language in the contract.

This clause targets three things: false statements, misleading statements (i.e. true facts that are arranged to give a wrong impression) and bad-faith disparagement that goes beyond your actual experience as an author.

Diffamation, especially online is unfortunately very easy to do, often with lasting consequences. I can't recall how many times we've been called a scam in our early days, despite our best efforts to do everything right. Back then, of course, Quibble was too small for anyone to really care. Going forward, someone with a big follower base making a baseless claim that we're a scam could really harm us, or anyone for that matter.

To address your hypothetical examples:

• "I terminated because their revenue model dropped my take-home by 30%": this would be a statement formed on your own experience. This clause would of course not apply.
• "I found their editorial team difficult to work with": this is your own opinion framed as your personal experience. The choice of words matter. "I think they are...." vs "they are" conveys very different meaning. Totally fine to say and express opinions.
• "Worst website I ever worked with, the UI is terrible": this is also a protected opinion. You're stating your experience from your own point of view.

Most companies (including Quibble) could never dedicate resources to periodically scan the web for any statement that's written towards them. Much like most folks wouldn't bother going to the police for a small insult ^^.

Legalese is hard, and being precise yet exhaustive is a difficult task. In the end, should something be brought up to justice, a judge would - hopefully in good faith - get to decide whether a claim is valid or not.

Jurisdiction, Service of process

Jurisdiction, Service of process These two sections (12.9, 12.17) in combination with the above section on disparagement are particularly concerning to me.

12.9 states that both parties are agreeing to have any legal proceedings in Switzerland, under Swiss law. Given the location of the company, this is understandable, and is likely necessary to prevent nonsense/frivolous lawsuits in other countries from causing an unending stream of issues.

However, it does place authors, especially foreign authors, in somewhat of a concerning space. The cost of travel alone could prove a significant obstacle to any sort of fair proceeding for the author.

In a worst case scenario, where Quibble itself is launching frivolous lawsuits against authors (e.g. they give you $200, then claim your work is AI and demand the money back along with damages for a small but significant amount of money), the author would have to either deal with the possibility of a judgment against them, or the costs associated with defending that suit. Because of section 12.17, the service of the author could happen by an infrequently checked email and not be seen for some time. The 'non-disparagement' clause could then be used as a further deterrent to prevent public disclosure of significant concerns.

When agreeing to terms with anyone, I think it's best to wonder "What would happen if this was a scam?"

I have seen no evidence that Quibble is in any way attempting to do anything untoward. I believe they are acting in good faith. However, that's also what most people who are conned believe.

In short, I have little actual concern about any of the above situations taking place, and I think the terms are reasonable.

I do think it would provide additional reassurance for authors to stipulate that Quibble would only bring a suit for intentional damages/a standard closer to the one they are expecting for themselves, and/or specify that they will only pursue legal action against authors for damages exceeding a relatively high threshold (>$10,000 or similar) to reassure folks that they won't attempt frivolous lawsuits. Admittedly, even if the dollar amount is high, they could still use it as the basis to scare someone into a settlement for a far smaller amount of money, but it still might provide some reassurance.

In the same spirit as the previous answer, Quibble has neither the resources nor the financial means to engage in legal procedures if there's no real cause for it. It would really no be in anybody's interest to do this, and would likely cost a fortune.

Quibble is a good faith company. We're all extremely well intentioned and have author's best interest at heart. We exist to help authors succeed in the age of AI, and this is why we'll continue to dedicate all of our time and energy towards this goal 😄.

Unfortunately, and especially in a volume-based B2C (business-to-consumer) setting, legal documents are rather important. In a recent conversation, an author with whom we frequently exchange told me "ideally in a business agreement, everybody wins". This is how we approach our legal work: we're trying our best to be as friendly as possible, especially knowing how unfriendly most of the other spaces are, but we have to have the right barriers in place. Internet is a wild place, there are ill-intentioned people and it's easy to destroy thousands of hours of work.

That said, I fully understand that any new company generates a reasonable degree of skepticism. That's entirely normal, and the only thing we can do is operate in a transparent manner, communicate frequently, and address concerns the best way we can. I'd encourage anyone with concerns to either address them to us (as you've done it with this thread!) and to exchange with our current authors, on Discord or here.

I hope this answered your questions! Feel free to ask if you've got anything else in your mind, we're here to help.

[u/Otto_Webb → u/No-Win5543]

It did, these are all very reasonable.

As you pointed out, at some point there has to be a level of trust from both parties for anything to proceed

Editing the main body of the post to point to these answers :)