Slashdot Mirror
AOL 5 Gets $8 Billion Class Action Suit
ralian writes "According to Time Daily peeved users have filed an $8 billion class action against AOL-Time Warner because of AOL 5. It's sort of funny to see Time reporting on a lawsuit against their parent company. Check it out here."
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
tobkin-at-half-truth.com
Does anybody else see the legal difference between these two statements?
:) ?
1. I am going to become your default internet connection (I am going to be the default autodial in Dial Up Networking).
2. I am going to become your only Internet connection (I am going to delete the other connections in Dial Up Networking and make it impossible to get them back without removing me).
Number two is what's happening, right? This is textbook misrepresentation, right? This lawsuit will still fail because some law makes this kind of misrepresentation legal, right
Gotta love big corporations that think (and probably actually do) run the world.
Is this post not nifty? Sluggy Freelance. Worshi
AOL can't expect to get away with this just by saying they gave users the option to click "no" when the installer asks whether AOL should be the default browser. The fact is, AOL is aimed at clueless newbies. Clueless newbies, almost without exception, just click away at the default choice without understanding what they're doing. Besides, there's no reason why AOL has to break other ISP setups. This is as bad as MS releasing versions of Windows that break competitors' products. AOL deserves whatever they get.
--
Yes, I work at an ISP and have had users call and complain that AOL deleted their DUN to our service after they installed it. Maybe we should start sending AOL a bill for all the hours we have to spend on the phone recreating the DUN that AOL deleted?
Lawyers got money
Plaintiffs got 5 free hours. Keeping in mind that new users got 20 free hours...
ManTroll
From the commentary..
It's sort of funny to see Time reporting on a lawsuit against their parent company.
No more funny than seeing inaccurate commentary on slashdot.
AOL doesn't own TW yet....
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
What do you mean "almost?" It would be unethical, plain and simple. We rely on news sources to be objective (well, we're supposed to be able to rely on them...) and if they allow their affiliations to get in the way of editorial freedom, that's just plain unethical.
--
I have to use AOL often (travel, work, if you want to flame, flame my unnamed employer, thank you!) and I have been using 5.0 since it's release.
I have not had any of these problems at all with anything.
Also, through AOL connection, I use Netscape (just select direct internet connection when setting that up), mIRC, F-SSH, various CuteFTP, AIM (can have your casual ID on while the one your boss knows is logged into AOL) etc. All with no problem.
I would like to know exactly what the real problem is and see if I can manage to replicate it on the antique laptop I use for the road.
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
A similar article is running on CNN.com. Some interesting highlights:
I seriously doubt that plaintiffs are going to get anything close to what they're asking, even if they win. $1000 seems like a lot of money, even if you include punative damages. More importantly, it sounds as though a reasonable percentage of users had no problems with the install. The $8 billion figure is just a headline grabber. A more interesting question is whether AOL is going to stick with their "they clicked accept, so tough luck" defense, and whether it will fly if they do.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
The story takes the mere filing of a class action suit (something that happens very frequently, to all kinds of companies) and holds it out at a sign of Big Trouble for AOL.
AOL, through unnamed representatives, gets one quote in the whole piece -- and a legalistic sounding one at that.
And, to top the article off, the piece ends with two extended quotes from some managing editor at *Time* who essentialy sez that AOL has screwed up and needs to be more responsible. An editor at Time?! This guy is qualified to comment because he's the reporter's boss? I guess it cuts down on interview expenses when you only need walk down the hall for a few good quotes.
If anything, I think the story reflects Time's fear of being seen as if it is pulling punches. The quotes from Mr. Big Editor guy make me think this is some sort of internal message to the troops that it's ok to jump on AOL.
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."
They point out that AOL did it to reduce competition from other ISP's (such as Prodigy) and the question 'Do you want AOL to be your default ISP?' is the setup part that causes problems.
Teaches people right not read their License Agreement.
This could be very bad precident to be set by courts, with poor documentation being grounds for a Class Action Suit.
--
Gonzo Granzeau
Gonzo Granzeau
"Nothing the god of biomechanics wouldn't let you into heaven for.." -Roy Batty
#2 "I am going to become your ONLY internet connection" is what is happening. A freind of mine wanted to switch from AOL 5 to FreeI, and required my help to do so. He was able to dial up to freei, but after the modem connection was established, NO TCP/IP connections would work.
It turns out (according to the network control panel applet) that AOL installed their own "AOL Dial up adapter" network driver and that TCP/IP was bound to this driver. We were unable to connect TCP/IP via another ISP until this AOL crap wa ripped out of the network settings and the TCP/IP bindings were reset to the "Normal" Dial-up adapter driver.
One evil empire was bad enough. Not that I'm for any sort of governmental control, but it seems they have the only direct power right now to stop corporations from becoming big and evil. What is the greater of the two evils: Big Monopolistic Companies, or the Big Bad Brother Government? (Sigh)
I mean, lots of people use AOL, but hate it. They just don't know of any other way to connect, much like they don't know how to use an OS besides Windows. While we can try to educate people about the internet, it is a daunting task, is it not? These people are at the mercy of AOL ^_^; Who will stand up for their rights?
"You ever have that feeling where you're not sure if you're dreaming or awake?"
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
I have installed the AOL 5.0 software and the following is what occurs to "take over" your hard drive:
Message box pops up asking if you'd like to 1. Use AOL for EVERYTHING (ie. mailto: http: ftp: news: urls ..etc..) 2. No Changes 3. Further customize these settings.
When option 3 is selected, another box pops up allowing the User to CHOOSE what protocols are assigned to the AOL software. I have been using AOL for a few years now (don't ask why ;) and their software doesn't provide the greatest interface, particularly to ftp:// and news:// .. when in Windows I use WS_FTP-LE for ftp and Netscape or MS Outlook for reading my mail and checking my news. For those of you who haven't used aol's Mail tool, it is VERY restrictive. You must experience it to know how bad it really is.. hey, and they give you a free month to decide -- just install windows .. http://www.aol.com/
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
What people need to understand is the potential implications of a case like this. We had the recent case against Toshiba, settled for a paltry 2 billion dollars. And even then not everyone took part in the settlement. If this case suceeds it is going to shake the entire software industry. The implications that software manufactures can be responsible for what they do to someone's computer would be a fundamental change in thinking for almost every software company. This is really no different than Quicken installing Internet Explorer, or a dozen other such programs. This is just the first time that a lawsuit has gained class action status. In a nutshell, if AOL loses, it is going to force software manufacturers to be responsible for what they have created. Software that is carelessly written, documented, or creates security holes will be an open invitation to sue. Perhaps this country is too sue happy, but what does it take to make software manufactures to stop their lackluster quality control. (I work for a software co by the way). This is not really that different than what other industries have gone through. The result of this may be that software will come with warning labels. Imagine, "Installation of Personal Web Server will leave your system open to security risks at the following ports..." I think a lawsuit of this nature is overdue. There is no other industry where shipping a product with 100's of flaws is considered acceptable.
Some people need AOL because their job requires them to use it. How would they know that default means wipe out all other ISP information? Now it is fairly common knowledge because of this suit.
My company used it as a on the road ISP and also as a way to test. If you can access something trhough AOL then it can be accesses by just about anyone. We don't use it now, but we did.
IMHO this lawsuit has merit.
--- If you don't want to know the answer, don't ask the question.
AOL made an arguably defective product. A reasonable person would not have been able to forsee the defect; there were no warnings, &c, to indicate that AOL 5 would disable non-AOL network access. $8 billion is ridiculously excessive, but this is far from a frivolous lawsuit. I'm not the judge, but if I were, I'd start by smirking at plaintiffs' counsel, then I'd let this lawsuit go right on ahead. It might send a signal to companies (such as Microsoft) that you can't put out software that sucks without risking serious, perhaps even business-threatening, consequences. Which is as it should be.
Finding God in a Dog
This might go through, or it might not, but it certainly wouldn't have a chance if the UCITA was passed into law. The UCITA would give AOL the legal right to do whatever the hell they wanted.
Of course, a case like this could knock down the UCITA, but it would have a much harder road ahead then if It didn't exist. Anyway, help try to stop the UCITA from being passed in your state.
Amber Yuan (--ell7)
"and dear god does this website suck now." -- CmdrTaco
First Toshiba, now AOL. Who do I get to sue if I install a newer version of glibc and the RPM breaks all my apps? Should I be able to sue RedHat because RedHat5 default install had a billion security holes and my box got rooted?
What if KOffice or GNOME Office core dumps and I lose work? (ala alleged Toshiba floppy leading to lost work)
First of all I would like to thank the cluless moderator who gave me a flamebait. You can't express yourself with any emotion or have a non PC opinion around here anymore. IMHO the quality of moderation has declined over the past 3-4 months.
Secondly... I stand behind what I said. Even if I agree that what AOL did was "wrong" (yes I do think it's wrong, misleading, etc) that doesn't make it illegal.
Maybe my RTFM rant was a bit strong, but people tend to think of computers as toasters when they aren't. If I ruin my car because I try to upgrade the engine and I have no clue as to what I'm doing can I then sue Honda because they put a hood release in the car? I'm exagerating here I know, but the whole thing seems so silly.
Why do these people just not use it? They have a choice, use a different service provider. I have seen AOL their *exclusive* content and services are not that great.
From the comments I have seen here it would appear these people have just not set their accounts up corectly. It is human nature just to blame somebody else though. Add a highly litigous society such as in the US and this sort of stuff is just begging to happen.
I have no love for AOL but this is just ridiculous. Just people trying to get something for nothing. I hope the courts laugh it out just like it deserves. Not knowing the US legal system I don't know how likely this is. BTW I have nothing against the US or it's citizens. This is just an observation from abroad.
"Patience is a virtue, afforded those with nothing better to." - I don't remember
"Patience is a virtue, afforded those with nothing better to do." - I don't remember
3. I am going to become your only Internet connection and if you click no, your system will be screwed because our programmers were not prepared for this eventuality and assumed you'd say yes.
I had to reinstall windows on a friend's computer because for some strange reason (at least on the machine I tried to install AOL 5.0 on for a friend) AOL 5.0 corrupts the msmouse.vxd file. You can test this easily by trying to install AOL 5.0 on a Windows machine and after it crashes have the machine boot at prompt you before performing each task on bootup.
After this occured the machine would always freeze upon booting unless booted in safe mode. Since I had no idea how to edit the msmouse.vxd file or even how to tell what was wrong (plus my friend was getting hysterical) I reinstalled Windows.
PS: In my opinion AOL deserves this lawsuit. Such an intrusive feature was bound to affect so many interactions and cause so many different problems that it was impossible for there not to be some problems. That said their QEs and QAs could have done a more thorough job of testing the software before releasing it.
It seems to me that the problem is not with AOL's software, it's with the library model in Windows.
I.e., the fact that central libraries exist that can be overwritten silently by installing applications, which almost always install their own versions of libraries. AOL 5 isn't the only software with this problem, although it may be the most extensive. AOL wants to use their own TCP/IP drivers? No problem! Just don't erase the existing ones, please. Windows isn't designed to accommodate that.
* And remember, it's spelled N-e-t-s-c-a-p-e, but it's pronounced "Mozilla."
I'm sorry, AOL knows its target audience is computer illiterate. The answer to "what exactly does saying 'ok' here" is probably undocumented, or, if it is, the docs are either online (after it's too late) or sure as hell not in the "Getting started" skinny version of the manual. If there was TFM to begin with.
In most other professional environments this practice has some dirty name or other, like "churning" or "slamming" or "psychology by the pill"; most are illegal, and the rest will get you a trip before the professional ethics board. What AOL did is not technically illegal, but it's highly unethical, and cost a lot of people a lot of blood, sweat, and tears. I think those people deserve to be richly rewarded for their trouble.... but (gods willing) a jury will be allowed to decide that question. In case anyone forgot, under British common law (which American common law is based on), the jury is allowed to judge the law as well as the facts. The AOL jury-to-be has the power to MAKE their conduct illegal-by-case-law. I hope they do.
Oh, and as for AOheLl and Slime Vermin being already merged.... according to the indications being given out, it's tantamount to a done deal. It might be interesting, however, if for some reason this case in itself held things up...
If nothing else, these so-called "clueless morons" are making a public spectacle of just how BAD yonder so-called ISP really is... and the more we have of that, IMHO the better. I think the plaintiffs should be given a medal for having the cojones to even attempt such a thing.
I know. Down with AOL'ers, down with my karma. But the previous poster noted it better than I... your chickens WILL come home to roost.
I hope this gets through as a precedent.
The unauthorized modification of settings REALLY needs to stop. Too many popular programs out there do crap to the computer without asking. Many of these things they do because they -know- that the average user doesn't have any clue how to undo them.
For instance Real. Especially them.
They put icons on the desktop, in the start menu, everything without asking. It at least asks about file associations, but when you click "customize" it just shows you EVERY media file type, with a check mark next to each. It doesn't offer any help as to what already was associated, or the like.
Real Jukebox turns on CD-audio autoplay every time you run it. I didn't notice this until I recently switched CD drives and decided to use TweakUI to disable AutoPlay crap instead of turning it off at the hardware level. Every time its run Real Jukebox turns on the audio auto play. No where can I turn it off, never did it ask anything.
And these are actually pretty mild examples.
I wish there were some laws, or at least MORALS which software companies followed, and resulted in user choice for every modification(within reason) to the user's computer.
In addition to monetary damages, the suit wants to force AOL to clearly document what it means by "default internet connection" and explicitly warn people that all other DUN will disappear.
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
Up at my website (err, here) is a mirror of some software written for Linux (err, Unix) to allow you to tunnel IP packets through the service. Yes, it's real. You may run into some trouble with using pthreads. I am actively working on the code. Does anyone know the issues with pthreads and glibc 2.1 (it compiles fine; it segfaults after running for about a minute; I've traced this to one specific function call)? By the way, it's written in C++ (yuck for me; one virtual function made it not work at all for a while).
Just because AOL is generally considered a "newbie's" "ISP" doesn't mean that all of its users are newbies. It also does not mean that none of them use Unix. I am not a newbie, I use Linux, and I happen to use AOL as an ISP for other reasons.
The great thing about this software is it is not at all intrusive on your system. Just one client program, maybe a shell script (haven't figured that much out yet), and a network interface. Maybe you might have to change your default route. Big deal. It doesn't mess with apmd. It'll leave cron alone. You can keep your dial-up settings for Quake. Very nice.
Kenneth
There is no way that Microsoft would have broken these ports by design though, so we are talking about two different things. AOL 5 breaks other ISPs if you install it as the default - by design.
postmoderncore - art and creation are a higher purpose
My family was an AOL subscriber for a long long time until I whined to get a real ISP. Finally, we got AT&T WorldNet service. Why? Because it allowed us to get AOL service for only $8 a month more than the regular service.
We just thought that was an awesome deal. However, last year, my brother went to private school. And for the longest time, the school couldn't get their network straightened out, so my brother dialed into AOL to get on the Internet.
Little did we know that the $8 a month is ONLY if you sign on to WorldNet FIRST, and then log on to AOL. Otherwise, they charge an exhorbitant connection charge. The resultant phone bill was over $100 for the phone charges ALONE.
I realize this is a matter of policy, HOWEVER, I couldn't find anything about this in the initial policy agreement... that pissed me off. I'd sign up for this any day.
You should never take life too seriously - You'll never get out of it alive.
I mean, think of how much better life might be for all of us if AOHell had taken a different line and tried to make things easy to understand, rather than simple. Easy To Understand being different, explaining what everything does, rather than Simple saying "Just click here and enter your credit card number, then click on things you like!". It is criminal how stupid they've made, oh, say, 8-10 million human beings.
We won't debate on wether or not using AOL makes you stupid or anything. That's not my point. If they'd bothered to make things educational rather than simple... (sigh)
The article didn't say anything about how the $8 billion figure was arrived at, although I didn't expect that. Does anyone have any guesses, or better yet, hard facts? And what is AOL's current installed base? We could certainly figure out how much this works out to per user from that. As for the real merits of the suit, I have no idea. I'm not a lawyer and the only thing I understand about class action lawsuits is that they are only ever aimed at targets with deep pockets.
The net will not be what we demand, but what we make it. Build it well.
...but then I read your last paragraph.
It looked like you were arguing that AOL (and the rest of the industry) has no responsibility for the quality of their software, even when it is flawed to the point of damaging their victim^Wcustomers' systems, since they have EULAs that disclaim all such responsibility.
It's true that the agreements have these disclaimers, but I, along with probably most people here, would argue that this does not excuse them, which also seems to be the main point of the class-action. I would protest that they should be held responsible, regardless of what "contracts" they print on the box, and that their attempts to get out of it should not be considered valid. Of course, the question of the validity of shrink-wrap and click-through contracts would come up again as well.
Anyway, you may have been just a bit too subtle: it took me a while to realize that you (at least seem to) share this opinion of the practice. If I understand it right, you're saying that you want the suit to fail so that the issue will be blown up, leading to a real reform, and not swept under the rug with a quick settlement. But, wouldn't a win in court be good for that purpose? If it's not a settlement, but a real court decision awarding damages for what they have done, wouldn't it establish a precedent effectively invalidating the shrink-wrap and click-through disclaimers?
David Gould
David Gould
main(i){putchar(340056100>>(i-1)*5&31|!!(i<6)<< 6)&&main(++i);}
This isn't a flame, I just want to make a couple points:
*Minor quibble - by "America" you of course mean "The United States of America," which is in North America. AOl has very little market share in Uruguay.
This isn't as much "normalization" as it is "don't take so many drugs when you're designing tables."
It's not just AOL that specializes in brain-dead installers. About a year ago I had to deal with one "real" ISP's Mac installer that installed old networking software (MacTCP and friends) when much newer stuff (Open Transport) was in place. Not to mention an old version of Netscape, etc. I'm not sure what would have happened if I hadn't cleaned it up.
But wait, there's more! Early USB SuperDisk Drives came with installers that would "update" the Mac OS ROM File to an appropriate version. Unfortunately, it didn't check the version of the existing file. Several minor OS updates later, the "update" (now a downgrade) causes the machine to go to an unresponsive gray screen during the boot process.
But AOL's Bastard Installer From Hell has a little something else: it disrupts rival means of Internet access, causing people to cry "monopoly" and start a huge class-action lawsuit against them. This should be interesting...
I doubt I'll stop posting here any time soon, but I don't see how on Earth you could possibly say that Slashdot does good reporting. Journalistically, it's a very shoddy operation, with numerous misleading and flat-out incorrect stories getting posted when a little basic fact-checking would do wonders.
Actually, my first reaction to the "It's sort of funny" comment jibed with some of the other posters -- thinking that the article submitter must find it funny because he relies on Slashdot as his major news source, what with their tendency to overhype petty articles about Microsoft, but sugarcoat and outright withhold stories when it's an ABMer presented in a bad light. I loathe Time's editorial leanings, but their reporting on this story is de rigueur for practically all the major news outlets.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
RELATED SITES: AOL
Note: Pages will open in a new browser window
External sites are not endorsed by CNN Interactive.
-----
No Zen is good zen
First, all I know about AOL 5.0's nasty habits is what I've read on the Internet. But let's assume that due to either incompetant or malicious coding, it's software is causing connection problems with other ISPs, who have to devote time & money to fixing it.
/. There are better fora to discuss this on. I have no real opinon about AOL either way. But if AOL pissed me off enough I wanted justice, an IDP is the solution I'd pursue -- not a lawsuit.
Okay, instead of siccing some hungry lawyers on them, why not call for an Internet Death Penalty?
This lawsuit will probably end up with a few lawyers making several million dollars, a number of AOL customers receiving a credit of at most $500 towards more AOL time, & continued problems with AOL software & their clueless management. An IDP would force them clean up their act & behave ethically -- & at the least the rest of the Internet would not have to deal with AOL.
Of course, if I was serious about this, I wouldn't be posting this on
Geoff
I think I see a trend here. Maybe for them it really would be easier to muzzle the entire internet than to produce p
Well, there needs to be. I hope this sets a precedent: software makers need to be held accountable in the same way airplane manufacturers and auto makers are held accountable. The software industry should not be immune to responsibility simply because the quality of the products it releases is invariably poor.
Let's put some responsibility into this horrible industry, for once.
- A.P.
--
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
Agent Steve: "As you can see, we've had our eye on you for some time now, Mr. Anderson. It seems that you've been using two ISPs. On one ISP, you're Thomas A. Anderson, newbie and AOL user. You use AIM, read our Time-Warner content, and buy from our advertisers."
"On the other ISP, where you go by the handle Neo and have consumer freedom and decent ping times. One of these software installations has a future, and one of them does not."
"My colleagues believe that I am wasting my time with you but I believe that you wish to do the right thing. We're willing to wipe your registry clean, give you a fresh start and all that we're asking in return is $21.95 a month."
Neo: "Yeah. Wow, that sound like a really good deal. But I think I got a better one. How about I give you the finger... and you give me my DUN back."
Agent Smith: "Um, Mr. Anderson. You disappoint me."
Neo: "You can't scare me with this monopoly crap. I know my rights. I want my ISP back."
Agent Smith: "Tell me, Mr. Anderson, what good is an ISP if you have no Dial-Up Adapter? You're going to subscribe to us, Mr. Anderson whether you want to or not."
Neo: !!!
>"Moderators": do your duty!
:)
They did.
Disclaimer: I'm in the middle of the software process. I build applications using tools. I have to produce systems that work, based on elements out of my control. Thus I suffer from my bugs and the bugs in the software tools I need. Some weeks are better than others :-\
I tended to belive that Slashdot was relatively unbiased, excepting the pro-Linux stance, until I found out they were supressing Visor stories because "they" thought the product was "over-hyped".
Guess what? Most internet sites work the same way. Why do you think Slashdot has an ad-banner at the top of the screen? Andover didn't buy them to be nice guys; they bought them because it was profitable, and in their interests.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Now I know of two people.
Oh... yes, quite right :-)
* And remember, it's spelled N-e-t-s-c-a-p-e, but it's pronounced "Mozilla."
It would appear that you have lots and lots of spare cash to throw around, so that you can have only one application per box.
I do have sufficient spare cash that I don't need to install AOL applications (sic) on a box that is also running my business. I have boxes that would cost me $500 / day if they stopped working, and I have boxes that are there for the slaughtering. NO WAY do you install anything, especially not from AOL or M$oft, on the development boxes unless it's vital and trusted. Bitter experience tells me that either of these companies will deliver "trivial browser upgrades" that shaft major system components.
no fscking software author should be breaking my stuff without asking me, first.
Absolutely, hence whacking them with the punitive damages (and devils with red hot pokers too, for all I care)
My point though isn't that AOL didn't do A Bad Thing, but that users who "need" $1000 compensation shouldn't have been so stupidly trusting in the first place. This isn't a mature field as yet, and most of the products out there are majorly broken in one or more ways.