[petercooper]

In the UK, this is less of a problem, though it depends a lot on the contract between the company and the developer. Assuming nothing exotic, that the statement on the site is true (and not a malicious falsehood) and that if the hosting belongs to the end customer they did not revoke the developer's access (i.e. no unauthorised access occurred), then the developer is in a reasonable position legally. IANAL, of course.

[EGreg]

No unauthorized access but they would argue unauthorized vandalism by the developer, which blocks the entire site.

Airing dirty laundry is in some jurisdictions a legal offence. Which is exactly why there needs to be agreement spelled out in contracts upfront, that this could happen, and the client would just sign it.

And I am a fan of smart contracts and cryptocurrencies, see my suggestion below:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46502285

[petercooper]

Airing dirty laundry is in some jurisdictions a legal offence.

In the UK, the place where the site in the original link is, it's okay to state facts about a business transaction in public if it's not a malicious falsehood, a violation of contract, or a violation of privacy laws (e.g. sharing emails or recorded calls). But yes, I agree, the issues leading up to this should all be tackled by the contract up front.

[elevatortrim]

So if I'm a builder, can I build a wall in front of your grocery store's door if you did not pay me, as long as I do not lie and I do not break in?

[petercooper]

You wouldn't own the land. It's quite common with small business web design for the developer to also control the hosting. The actual point in the web site case is that you are revoking the copyright license to the content until you receive payment, a well tested and accepted concept in UK law.

That said, there have certainly been situations where builders have gone back to properties and taken back their property (like tiles from walls, joinery, etc.) but I have no idea how that pans out legally as it's outside my wheelhouse.