Exposed: Flowcurve.io (Josh Houben & Webmates.io)

Flowcurve.io and Webmates.io: Separate Agencies, Similar Issues?

Both Flowcurve.io and Webmates.io position themselves as premier Webflow or Website agencies, promising top-tier design and development services. However, a closer look at these businesses reveals alleged instances of misleading practices, including the unauthorized use of logos and the creation of potentially fabricated partnerships.

Despite the appearance of professionalism, clients and observers have raised concerns about the ethics behind these agencies, with many citing a lack of transparency and misleading information.

Trademark Infringement: Misusing Logos

One of the instances of Houben's disputed practices involves the unauthorized use of the Workbase Platforms Sp. z o.o. logo. They displayed this logo on their website, suggesting a business relationship that, according to Workbase Platforms Sp. z o.o., never existed. Workbase had never entered into any form of agreement with Houben’s companies, yet their trademarked logo was used to falsely imply a partnership. Learn more.

Source: https://www.workbase.com/blog/josh-houben-and-webmates-io-flowcurve-webflow-framer-review

We asked Josh Houben about this claim, and he responded on October 26, 2024, stating: "The use of the Workbase logo was an isolated oversight, immediately corrected upon notification, with no evidence of intent to mislead clients or imply a partnership."

But was it truly an 'isolated oversight'? We reached out to other companies listed as references on his websites. Several confirmed that they had never granted permission for their logos to be used on Webmates.io.

Previously listed Reference on Webmates.io.

In fact, 6 out of the 10 current references on the Webmates.io website either lack a verifiable online presence (e.g., website) or seem unverifiable. If these so-called companies have no website or online presence, one has to wonder — what exactly did Josh Houben do for these 'clients'?

Flowcurve.io – Houben’s Demands for Money

The situation took a concerning turn when Joshua Houben allegedly engaged in actions we believe may be perceived as unethical. After posting what we consider a negative review of Workbase Platforms Sp. z o.o. on Google, a company he never had any business relationship with, Houben reached out to the company, requesting USD 7,500 in exchange, among other things, for removing the review. This attempt to demand money under the implied threat of additional reputational harm strikes us as both unethical and questionable.

Rather than complying with these demands, Workbase took swift legal action, filing a police report in NRW, Germany, and pursuing legal recourse for defamation and related concerns.

Update 26. October 2024

Houben's Response to these Accusations: "The accusation of extortion is particularly egregious and has no basis in fact. My settlement offer to Workbase was a clear, itemized proposal covering unpaid invoices, interest, and fair compensation for time and stress in defending against their unfounded accusations. As part of this settlement offer, which was explicitly marked as confidential, I proposed that the review could be removed [...]"

Timeline of Events

• Josh Houben writes the review about Workbase Platforms Sp. z o.o. on Google.

• Workbase informs Mr. Houben that no business relationship ever existed between his companies and Workbase Platforms Sp. z o.o., asking for the review’s removal. They also discover he used their logo on his website without permission and request its removal.

• Mr. Houben acknowledges the mistake and edits the review to indicate it’s directed at another company, not related with Workbase. However, the review remains on the Google profile for Workbase Platforms Sp. z o.o.

• Workbase repeats its request for the review’s full removal, emphasizing there was never any relationship between the two entities.

• After multiple exchanges, Mr. Houben states that in exchange for removing the review, he would like USD 7,500, warning that without payment, Workbase could face “additional reputational damages.”

Analysis of Mr. Houben’s Claims

1. “Settlement Offer for Unpaid Invoices”
   Mr. Houben’s assertion that his $7,500 request stemmed from a “settlement offer” for unpaid invoices raises significant questions. According to available information, Workbase Platforms Sp. z o.o. has never entered into a business agreement with Mr. Houben or his companies, suggesting there is no foundation for claims of “unpaid invoices.” This could be seen as misleading, especially in the absence of any contractual relationship.

2. “Interest and Compensation for Time and Stress”
   Mr. Houben’s mention of “interest and fair compensation” for time and stress spent addressing Workbase’s concerns also prompts scrutiny. The demand for compensation related to his responses seems puzzling, as reports indicate that Workbase’s requests centered around clarifying the use of their logo and removing a potentially erroneous review. Without an underlying business relationship, Mr. Houben’s grounds for claiming “compensation” could appear unsubstantiated and may be seen as an attempt to reframe his demands in a more favorable light.

3. “Review Removal as Part of a Confidential Settlement Offer”
   Mr. Houben describes the review removal as part of a “confidential settlement offer,” though this appears at odds with the lack of any direct link or transaction between him and Workbase Platforms Sp. z o.o. The suggestion that removal of the review would only occur after payment of the requested sum may raise ethical questions about the nature of these demands, especially if the implied reputational consequences are viewed as which could be perceived as exerting undue pressure.

In summary, Mr. Houben’s actions cast significant doubt on the legitimacy and ethical standards of his business practices. With no documented business relationship with Workbase Platforms Sp. z o.o., his claims of unpaid invoices and compensation lack any evident foundation, potentially misleading and distorting the facts. His persistence in maintaining a damaging review, coupled with financial requests, this approach raises ethical and legal questions for some observers. This case highlights the risks posed by such questionable tactics, underscoring the imperative for transparency, accountability, and professional integrity in business engagements, especially when reputations are at stake.

Webmates.io’s Hypocrisy: Using Framer Instead of Webflow

In a curious twist, despite Josh Houben’s promotion of Webflow, it has come to light that Webmates.io’s own website is built using Framer, an entirely different platform. Even more revealing is the fact that the website design was not custom-built—Webmates.io used a free Framer template, undermining their claims of offering custom design solutions for clients.

The Framer Template vs. Reality

This discovery highlights a significant inconsistency between Webmates.io’s marketing and their own business practices. They opted for a popular Framer template called "Convert" to design their own site, raising concerns about the consistency between their indirect marketing claims and their actual practices.

Source: https://webmates.io/privacy-policy, Dated: 24.10.2024

A comparison of the Framer template and the actual Webmates.io website shows, in our view, minimal customization, with the agency essentially relying on pre-designed elements to create their own platform.

A Pattern of Deception: Fabricated References and Misleading Claims?

Josh Houben and his agencies, Flowcurve.io and Webmates.io, have been accused of employing tactics that could be perceived as misleading to bolster their reputation. The unauthorized use of logos is just one example. The alleged misleading practices regarding references, alongside questionable demands against Workbase, raises concerns about the potential use of unethical practices to gain an edge in the competitive digital design space.

What You Should Know Before Partnering with Webmates.io or Flowcurve.io

Businesses considering working with Webmates.io or Flowcurve.io should be aware of the risks. The unauthorised usage of logos - framed as "references" with no business-relationship -, the use of pre-designed templates, and the alleged questionable tactics employed by Josh Houben should serve as clear red flags. Thorough due diligence is strongly advised before entering into any business relationship with these agencies.

Legal Action and Potential Repercussions

Workbase Platforms Sp. z o.o. has taken formal legal action against Josh Houben and his Company, filing a police report for defamation and related allegations and seeking full compensation for the damage caused to their brand. The company is pursuing:

• Compensation for the unauthorized use of their trademarked logo.

• Compensation for the harm caused by the defamatory review.

• Recovery of legal costs associated with addressing these unethical practices.

This case underscores the importance of ethical practices in business partnerships. Legal proceedings against Houben are ongoing, and the outcome could set an important precedent for how such cases are handled in the digital business landscape.

The Importance of Accountability in the Digital Design Industry

The actions of Josh Houben, Flowcurve.io, and Webmates.io are a stark reminder of the need for accountability in the digital design and development industry. While many agencies operate with integrity, there are exceptions like Houben’s businesses, which demonstrate an alleged use of questionable practices to get ahead. It is crucial that such behavior is called out and addressed, to ensure that clients can trust the agencies they work with.

Due Diligence: Protecting Yourself from Deceptive Agencies

For companies considering a partnership with Webmates.io, Flowcurve.io, or similar agencies, it is essential to conduct thorough background checks. Verify any claimed partnerships by contacting the referenced companies directly, and carefully scrutinize the agency’s past work. In the case of Webmates.io, the use of a Framer template for their own website serves as a clear example of the gap between their marketing claims and the reality of their services.