This is one of those "events" I have been warning about that could easily send a company like 3DP into voluntary Administration (VA) if these cases go against them. The very basics are that 3DP signed an agreement with HERE for a 3-year term for the provision of data to 3DP by HERE for annual fees totalling not less than $250K/year (MALF or Minimum Annual Licence Fee). 3DP don't want to pay because they say the data was deficient and unfit for purpose, however all parties agree that the original agreement is governed by the law of the Netherlands as stated in clause 12.9 of the agreement and 3DP's case is that it should not have to pay under Australian Consumer Law (specifically the "unfit for purpose" claim that 3DP is making about the data that HERE has provided to them).
I'm not suggesting that this applies in this case, however one could imagine that IF a company LIKE 3DP (the "hypothetical company") was to organise for the type of data feed that HERE provides in anticipation of being awarded a significant contract (or two) that would require the use of said data, and then that contract (or multiple contracts) was/were NOT then subsequently awarded to the "hypothetical company" that was expecting to be awarded those contracts, that "hypothetical company" COULD conceivably be willing to look for and use any possible "out" they could find to get out of paying for data that in the end was of no commercial use to them.
It's one thing to have great software capable of producing great analysis and processing power at much faster speeds than previously available software, but it's still a case of "garbage in, garbage out" as well as needing customers prepared to pay for those services. You can build a better mousetrap, but that's probably not going to be too revolutionary unless people have a mouse problem.
