Supreme Court accepted Walla website's claim and authorized it to remove Tabula's promoted content

Victory for the Walla In the Supreme Court in the lawsuit filed against her the content promotion company is submerged. Adam Singolda's advertising company, which publishes recommendations for surfers on content sites under headlines such as "across the web" or "recommended for you", sued Walla (Walla Communications Ltd.) for canceling the contract agreement between the site and the company. As stated, this week the court judge decided The Supreme Court, Yael Wilner, accept the Walla website's claim and authorize it to remove Tabula's promoted content.
The affair began when Tabula received a written notice from Walla CEO Ido Eshed stating that the site intends to terminate the contract with it and remove its publications from the site. A temporary restraining order was issued preventing Walla from removing the content, until the matter is clarified, since, according to her, the site's contract with a competing company ("Outbrain") will significantly harm Tabula's customer portfolio.
The Walla website, for its part, claimed that in its assessment the chances of a lawsuit were low and that the agreement signed between Tabula and the website was a "discriminatory agreement". In addition, it was argued that in the site's opinion, the lawsuit is tainted with bad faith and that in any case, there is no reason to prevent Walla from ordering the removal of the content (and of course, contacting another party in the field), even if the lawsuit is clarified. After all, it will be possible to award monetary compensation to the plaintiff.
On 26.2.21 the District Court decided to dismiss the subpoena application for a temporary restraining order which would in effect force on Walla the continuation of the agreement, and also revoked the temporary order issued by it four weeks earlier. In response, Tabula petitioned the Supreme Court before Judge Yael Wilner.
In her decision, Judge Wilner wrote: "The temporary relief would have forced Walla to continue to have a contractual relationship with the petitioner that requires a considerable degree of trust, after the relationship between them ran aground."
As stated, the Supreme Court rejected the petition and ordered that the decision of the district court be upheld, and also ruled that Tabula should bear the costs of hearing the application, in the amount of NIS 3,000. 
More about this source textSource text required for additional translation information