Streisand Effect in full force here. This is more than just a PR mistake now. I look forward to it being picked up by major news outlets.

I believe the brand reputation company made a mistake on behalf of crowdstrike. I doubt anyone at crowdstrike was involved directly.

Does it matter? If they authorized a brand reputation company to harass random third parties without runnit it by them firs then it's still their fault.

Who cares if it doesn't hurt revenue?

I certainly don't want to claim everyone on Hacker News is a high powered CISO making EDR purchasing decisions for their Fortune 500 company or whatever, but I feel like there are enough people with actual influence who read this site that if I was a security company (or any tech company) I wouldn't want front page stories that make me look petty about getting rightly clowned on after a fuck-up of galactic proportions.

I mean... is THIS going to be the thing to tip you over the edge? Not last month's shenanigans, but THIS?

Seriously. If the last 20 years of fuckery haven't been enough, nothing short of a nuclear holocaust will make people stop and reconsider.

Also, the name "Crowdstrike" was already worse than the name "Clownstrike"

There is the difference that this mistake is much simpler. A lot of business people will understand that having a litigation team without even the most basic Streisand filter is a newbie mistake. How they should have/could have protected themselves against the big breakdown is a lot more complicated, even for tech people.

If years from now CrowdStrike is known as "that company that sends bogus DMCA claims over parodys" then this is a huge success. Even a negative distraction might be good for them right now