If "tortuous" didn't already have a completely different useful meaning, I wouldn't object. Calling harmful behavior "tortious" shouldn't be ambiguous. I'm not sure what happened in olden times, but over the last decade "tortuous" has dominated because of clueless spellcheck.
Hmm, I've been using "tortuous" as the adjective for tort for probably a couple of decades and you're the first person to try to correct me. Clearly I'm using what Wiktionary classes as usage that's obsolete.
Interestingly googling around the principle usage -- to mean pertaining to a tort -- of this spelling is in UK Terms of Use. It's quite hard to search though as often people will talk about tortuous caselaw [1], meaning 'twisting and turning'. Both usages can be in the same document, so Google Search - in particular - is no good here.
Spelling "tortuous": I find supporting documents from the UK Home Office [3], the UK IPO (including in court proceedings for trademark), and in private practice references to UK tort law, eg [2] dated 2019.
I don't consider my usage to be wrong per se but will consider using tortious in international forums (I so wanted to write "fora", lol); thanks for the query, terse as it was.
It's possible we're all using it "incorrectly" of course. I work in the IP sector, we might all be drinking from the same fountain (eg perhaps reading past UK caselaw keeps us archaic).
Doesn't seem that out of line to me according to [0]. Subsituting from definitions in [0] yields 'as a result of Larping's deceitfully indirect or morally crooked interference' || 'as a result of Larping's circuitous interference', etc.
I think the right phrase here might have passed out of our vocabulary during a long recent period of extreme permissiveness. It's ungentlemanlike to speak of such things.
I would have used the term "vigilant" instead of "litigious". There is much less connotation of barratry, shakedowns, and other distasteful activities.
> it can be easy to get caught out by licensing requirements
reply