[markdown]

> But will this increase the web designer's chances to get paid? I don't think so.

Why wouldn't it? If the store owner doesn't let emotion cloud his judgement, he should figure out very quickly that it would be better to pay up rather then face further negative publicity.

> it would probably not further the career of the web designer either.

It should have about zero negative effect on the career of the designer, and may have a positive effect. Any company that has been in business long enough has been screwed before, and most people would root for the little guy in this scenario.

He has nothing to lose, and a payment to gain.

[jacquesm]

> If the store owner doesn't let emotion cloud his judgement, he should figure out very quickly that it would be better to pay up rather then face further negative publicity.

Disputes like this should be handled where they belong, in small claims court, not by damaging (possibly irreparably) one parties reputation.

If I were the store owner (which I'm not, and I'd have paid that bill if the work were done as agreed upon) and we'd be in a dispute over something and you'd pull a stunt like this then I would most certainly rake you over the coals.

This is a dis-proportionate response in the eyes of many, quite possibly in the eyes of the judge handling the case which could lead to all kinds of misery for the designer. One thing you don't do in a dispute is to hand your opponent ammunition.

[markdown]

Truth is a valid defense in any libel or slander case.

If someone who owes you doesn't pay you, you are well within your rights to tell people about it.

What probably happened is a small business wanted a website, so the web designer designs the website and buys them a domain name. The deliverables are a finished website along with a domain name and hosting.

If the client doesn't pay, then they own neither the domain name, the hosting, nor the design, and the web designer can do whatever the hell he wants with all three.