[shkkmo]

> The one thing I never understood about these warnings is how they don't run afoul of libel laws. They are directly calling you a scammer and "attacker"

Being wrong doesn't count as libel.

If a company has a detection tool, makes reasonable efforts to make sure it is accurate, and isn't being malicious, you'll have a hard time making a libel case

[jdsully]

There is a truth defence to libel in the USA but there is no good faith defence. Think about it like a traffic accident, you may not have intended to drive into the other car but you still caused damage. Just because you meant well doesn't absolve you from paying for the damages.

[shkkmo]

I'm not sure what exactly you mean by "good faith". The legal standard is "actual malice" which means you had to have either known you were wrong or recklessly disregarded being wrong. Just saying something false about a public figure in a way that causes damages is not enough.