I agree really important to know if a service is owned by a larger brand.
I’d however count this as neutral, since they’re generally legally required to inform other terms may apply to the use of the services, and sometimes knowing a particular service is in fact a subsidiary of a well-known company can make users avoid using it.
Thing is, this case proposal could probably lead to the development of something that would allow curators to not only say “This service is a subsidiary of Company X”, but also… maybe share documents from the parent company with the subsidiary?
I agree that this would better be neutral. Otherwise you’re giving an unfair advantage to companies in getting acquired by larger companies, because small companies that are not owned by a larger one won’t get these points.
The case has been created! Case 493: This service is a subsidiary of Company X I’ve slightly modified the description to make it neutral and to encourage the reviewer to replace the X by the name of the Company