Dispute over web marketing agreement enters Commercial list

A web marketing agent agreement broke down because of alleged unusual behaviour and use of unapproved networks, it has been claimed in Commercial Court proceedings.

Monetizead DOO, with a registered address in Sarajevo, Bosnia-Herzegovina, has brought an action over the dispute against Dublin-registered firms TechAds Media Ltd and Scugnizzeria Consulting Ltd.

Mr Justice Denis McDonald agreed to admit the case to the fast-track commercial list on Monday after he had adjourned it from last week to hear an explanation for why there had been a delay in bringing it.

After hearing from Barry O’Donnell SC, for Monetizead, that affidavits had been filed explaining that the delay was due to efforts to resolve the matter without moving to litigation, the judge admitted the case.

Hosting foreign students and Revenue’s rent-a-room relief

---

Irish productivity myth debunked

---

Meme stock mania is unlikely to last

---

Can US modular home specialist deliver for Ireland?

---

He approved directions and adjourned it to October to deal with an issue over whether the case should be heard in Bosnia-Herzegovina or Ireland.

Joe Jeffers SC, for TechAds, was neutral on the entry application, as was Padraic Lyons SC, for Scugnizzeria. Mr Lyons said there was never any allegation of wrongdoing against his client.

In its action, Monetizead claims it outsourced certain services to TechAds for the provision of search, social, native or more standard display marketing services. These were designed to drive traffic to TechAds Media’s partner sites.

Montizead says it took all reasonable steps to maintain a high quality of traffic by, among other things, monitoring, applying filters, shutting down low-quality sources and taking steps it was advised by TechAds to take from time to time. Montizead says TechAds repeatedly expressed satisfaction with its work.

On July 11th of last year, TechAds wrote claiming its business was seriously disrupted from third-party allegations of unusual behaviour and use of unapproved networks linked directly to its engagement with Montizead which strongly disputed the claims. On July 15th, TechAds said it was terminating the agreement.

Montizead claims there were no grounds for that purported termination and it was, in fact, contrived.

Montizead sought payment for some $3.8 million (€3.47 million) but it was not paid. It is also claimed TechAds has failed to correctly calculate Montizead’s share of monthly net share revenues between October 2021 and June 2022.

Montizead says TechAds has been unjustly enriched as a result of its (Montizead’s) services.

It claims the second defendant, Scugnezzeria, acted in breach of contract and duty in sending bad ads to the TechAds partner sites and failing to monitor and filter traffic properly or at all.