There’s like 100 comments blaming raycast, they should just sue for damages lol.

Had I not seen this thread, I would have assumed they consented to it, and I'd never willingly interact with Raycast or it's team in any way. I still have a somewhat negative opinion, so I think it's safe to say there are damages.

As a data point, I consent to be counted as associating raycast with the Microsoft brand and viewing them negatively as a consequence of using pull requests as an advertising canvas.

They should sue to have the ads removed from the texts they were inserted into, which is a vastly more difficult problem than simply paying some dollars.

I hear you, but honestly it’s kind of funny to think a company would send C&D to stop free advertising for them. I’d be surprising to see if any company ever does that, whatever the people think small brands worth they actually worth way less than that.

Is it free advertising or free brand damage? (people might think that raycast had consented to this)

but as we know from this thread, Raycast didn't consent to this.

It might be interesting to see what a lawyer might think of this and if there are enough reasonable claims to genuinely sue for damages

(Raycast definitely seek a lawyer privately, just in case)