Mummy blogger Constance Hall has suffered a setback in court as she has been ordered to pay $15,000 to website developers for breaching a contract related to her now-defunct website.

The controversial 39-year-old blogger, known as the “Queen,” was found liable for failing to produce sufficient content to ensure the financial success of her website, Queens of Constance, which Annabel and Jody Olward developed.

The website was launched after one of Ms. Hall’s blog posts, “Parent Sex,” went viral on social media in 2016, catapulting her to fame.

The Olwards, operating through their design firm Super Minimal, built the website in February 2016 and took legal action against Ms. Hall, alleging that she violated the terms of their agreement and caused them to lose more than $100,000 in potential revenue.

According to the District Court of Western Australia, Ms. Hall was required to produce website content to maximize advertising revenue regularly.

However, the Olwards claimed she failed to fulfill their agreement to create three weekly blog articles.

The Olwards presented a website proposal to Ms. Hall, offering to develop, maintain, monitor, and promote the website for free in exchange for a 50% share of the advertising revenue.

They were aware of the time sensitivity of the project and understood that the revenue from advertisers depended on attracting clicks to Ms. Hall’s blog pages.

The court documents stated that they were essentially marketing and selling Ms. Hall herself.

A judgment by District Court Judge Christopher Stevenson revealed that Ms. Hall and the Olwards agreed that capitalizing on Ms. Hall’s brief moment of fame required the creation, development, and maintenance of a website that could be monetized.

The agreement included Super Minimal designing and establishing the website and handling negotiations with advertisers and affiliate marketing groups.

During the trial, Annabel Olward testified that Ms. Hall verbally agreed to a 50/50 revenue split, with payment depending on the website’s profitability.

She emphasized the significant effort put into building the website, including branding, design, development, and launching within four weeks.

Email evidence submitted to the court showed that the Olwards’ work on the website cost them $42,350 during the five weeks preceding the launch.

Ms. Hall contested the claims, arguing that she provided alternative content and that generating marketing revenue was the Olwards’ responsibility. In addition, she believed the website would expand her social media following and attract an audience. By the end of 2016, her following had grown from 250,000 to over 1 million.

The judge, however, ruled in favor of the Olwards, stating that there was an implied agreement for Ms. Hall to provide original content up to three times per week.

He also found that Ms. Hall had orally agreed to participate in a forum on the website and engage with fans.

Judge Stevenson concluded that Ms. Hall’s failure to produce regular blogs directly impacted the website’s profitability by hindering traffic generation.

Accordingly, he ordered her to pay the Olwards $15,000 in damages, stating that her breach of the implied contractual obligation resulted in the loss of revenue that the website could have reasonably generated during the initial 12-month contract period.

It was revealed during the trial that there was a counterclaim agreement between the parties in which Ms. Hall would be paid $5,250, but the specifics of the counterclaim remain undisclosed.

In his closing remarks, Judge Stevenson mentioned that he did not have to read the blog post that sparked the litigation, expressing relief at being spared that task.

The dispute highlights the challenges of translating social media fame into sustained financial success.

In addition, it serves as a reminder for content creators to manage their contractual obligations to avoid potential legal disputes carefully.