[eranation]

In probably 99.9% of cases, at least in the US, the answer is yes. Forget about getting sued, you want the logos in your homepage to be a good reference to future customers. Like you don't put references in your resume without talking to them first... Same idea. But also the legal aspect... some companies will bar you from using their logo, (they could even negotiate a discount if they become "referencable"). The underlying reason is that some companies will not want anyone to know they use vendor X for purpose Y (e.g. Apple). But as I said, forget about the legal aspect, if a prospect sees a logo, they might ask you to setup a reference call (mostly for B2B / Enterprise, but not limited)

[notabanker]

Good to know there's a whole set of actions you have to be prepared for if you list a company's logo -- discounts, set up reference call, etc. Thank you.

[ev1]

Some companies don't give you a choice ;)

Digitalocean TOS, not changable and required on signup: 2.3 You grant us permission to include your name, logos, and trademarks in our promotional and marketing materials and communications.

[toast0]

> TOS, not changable and required on signup

Companies that regularly deal with large companies usually have the general TOS, and the TOS they'll agree to with large companies (or when reasonable sized companies check the terms w/ counsel before agreeing).

If I'm working with an easily replaceable supplier and they use my logo without explicit permission, it might be reason enough to replace that supplier. I remember being in someone's S-1 filing and getting a little bit upset (I can't remember if they notified us or not), but I can't really blame people for disclosing their largest customer by name is > 10% of revenue.

[nrb]

The enforceability of that is probably extremely weak, most plainly: does the person agreeing to the TOS have the right to grant permission to use the logos or trademarks?

[ev1]

Yeah, but it's still kind of a shitty move.

[nrb]

I don’t disagree at all :) these sort of scummy clauses deserve more scrutiny.