A long-running legal dispute between two major building industry data firms is shedding light on how competitive intelligence practices can blur into allegations of misconduct. Hubexo, formerly known as BCI Central, claims it began losing customers and revenue at the same time its larger rival, CoreLogic (now operating as Cotality) allegedly accessed its proprietary systems without authorisation.
According to reporting from the Australian Financial Review, Hubexo has brought its case before the Federal Court, arguing that between 2016 and 2020, CoreLogic used third-party login credentials to enter its LeadManager database and extract valuable market data. Hubexo asserts that this information was then used to strengthen CoreLogic’s own offerings and attract new clients.
CoreLogic does not deny accessing the system but disputes the characterization of its actions as “hacking.” Its legal defence is expected to focus on whether Hubexo can sufficiently demonstrate that the alleged conduct directly caused measurable financial harm.
Claims of Financial Impact
Hubexo’s legal team argues that the timing of customer losses is central to its case. Beginning in 2016, the company reportedly experienced a noticeable drop in renewal rates, alongside increased pressure from clients seeking discounts. These patterns, according to Hubexo, point to a direct correlation between the alleged unauthorized access and declining business performance.
The company is relying on churn rate (the percentage of customers who cancel subscriptions) as a key indicator of financial damage. While the court acknowledged that churn can be influenced by multiple factors, Hubexo maintains it is the most reliable proxy available in this case.
Internal Communications Under Scrutiny
Part of Hubexo’s argument includes internal communications from CoreLogic staff, which suggest awareness of the competitive gap between the two firms. In one email presented in court, a senior researcher reportedly justified maintaining access to Hubexo’s platform to better understand its competitor’s strengths and close performance gaps.
Hubexo contends that such communications demonstrate not only intent but also knowledge that the access was unauthorized. The firm alleges that deliberate steps were taken to conceal these activities over several years.
Broader Implications for Data and IP
Beyond the immediate financial claims, the case raises important questions about intellectual property rights and data usage in competitive markets. If Hubexo succeeds, the ruling could set a precedent for how courts interpret unauthorized access to subscription-based platforms and the valuation of proprietary business data.
As digital platforms become increasingly central to industry operations, disputes like this highlight the growing importance of cybersecurity, ethical data practices, and clear legal boundaries.
The trial is ongoing, with further arguments expected to clarify both the extent of the alleged conduct and its impact on Hubexo’s business.
Related Articles
