Slashdot Mirror
Bonzi Class Action Suit Settled: No Foolin'!
An anonymous reader writes "According to this
article in the Toronto Star, a class
action suit against Bonzi Software has reached a settlement.
Bonzi will not pay damages but will be required to stop using fake user
interface (FUI) style error messages to trick users into clicking on their
banners. This is a big win for the community as it will help to improve the
Internet's ailing perceived user experience.
Most of you have seen Bonzi's banners, and probably most of you won't admit
to having been fooled by them at some point. Well, imagine how many novice computer
users were tricked into installing again, or paying for software they really did not need.
Congratulations and thanks to Lukins & Annis
for a job well done.
Interestingly, bonzi.com has been returning connection refused all day. This is usually one of the net's busiest sites."
so how does this help those same novice users who had to pay for expensive PC repair because they also didn't know how to remove the software?
Mike
Except for one thing...parody with intent to defraud is not protected, and never has been (so far as I know, IANAL). Bonzai and other similar UI based ads were completely and totally intended to fool the unsupecting user into taking an action they ordinarily wouldn't, and generally to spend money they wouldn't ordinarily spend. That's fraud, and it's illegal, even if you claim it's a parody.
Bonzi will not pay damages but will be required to stop using fake user interface (FUI) style error messages to trick users into clicking on their banners. This is a big win for the community ...
A big win? What are you smoking? Bonzai duped countless users for years and completely got away with it. They didn't have to pay anything. A big win would be if they got slapped with such a huge fine that it would serve as a lesson to other companies contemplating the same sort of "business model".
GMD
watch this
I will admit up front that I am not terribly familiar with this case, but I have to say that I think you are wrong.
Don't misunderstand me, I am a HUGE fan of the first amendment (and an ACLU member). But I believe that the Bonzi ads are fraud. Fraud is not protected, not should it be. They are trying to trick people into clicking, not entice people into clicking, a very important difference. I don't think that this adversely effects the 1st, even in cases of interface parody... (esp. since it is a settlement, not a decision).
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
Bonzi's popups do have "Advertisement" up in the "title bar".
So I guess there should be a different litmus test for online ads than for print ones?
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Liars. They think lying's an OK way to make a buck. And like all liars, they think everyone else is a liar, too, which makes it OK.
They have no idea that the content of one's character is the most important thing in the world. Contrary to what the religions of mammon would have you believe, the ONLY truly holy thing there can ever be is an impeccable character. I'd much MUCH rather sleep in the gutter with a sparkling character than be a Banzi executive.
Bunch of animals, those Banzi creatures, and everyone like them... no, I take that back... most animals are sincere... humans have the corner on the liars market.
Mod down people who tell people how to mod in their sigs
These banners aren't fraudulent just because of what they say -- although what they say is certainly deceptive as well. My most serious objection to them is that they are deliberately designed to look like something much more important than advertising. If a company started putting up roadside advertisements made to look like road construction signs, little carts with blinking arrows made of individual lights (such as the DOT uses), and so on, in order to convince drivers that their driveway was the next exit, or that it was imperative to get off at their exit as part of a detour due to road construction, would we allow that? (Okay, Microsoft is not a government agency, but the importance of operating systems error messages on a computer is very similar to the importance of highway department messages on a highway.)
If you're an admin, you got the power. If you own your PC, you got the power. The last thing the 'net needs is some "central authority" to determine who gets to talk and who doesn't.
There's nothing illegal about Bonzi or Gator. The internet is about a free exchange of information.
If someone suggested we block sites like linux.org or sourceforge.net because they encourage hackers, you'd probably have a tantrum.
I think I'd rather control the filtering of the internet that reaches my machine. I am not ready to let my ISP decide what should and shouldn't make it through.
I'm just happy that I got my computer illiterate parents to use Mozilla. When the telco guy was installing DSL, he told them that they'd have to use IE and Outlook. I nearly kicked him out on his ass.
hang brain.
This could have been ended years ago if Microsoft had dropped a Look & Feel lawsuit on them. After all, they defend even their ownership of the word "Windows".
Or was this some secret plan of MS's -- like licensing *nix from SCO when SCO doesn't own it -- to get people to upgrade to XP so these banner ads will appear obsolete? This is how MS protects their users, by changing the whole visual metaphor?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
I think every dad in America double-clicks hyperlinks... at least almost every dad of a Gen-X tech worker since we're about that age.
My favorite was him coming to me trying to get the pr0n, complete with dialer, off of the computer and giving the excuse of "I was just trying to see how easy it was to protect your [younger] sister." Tsk tsk tsk.
But then again my dad is far enough up in management (and has been) that he didn't see ANY humor in Office Space at all. Now THAT is sad.
unf.
For those of you who have been connected since the early 90s/late 80s do you remember how the net was friendly place? Fine people mostly academics and uber geeks, no trolls, no hassle, no spam, hardly any banner ads. Not those full size flashes that interrupt your reading.
back in those good old days when the ICQ numbers were less than one million, and the beautiful Netscape animated logo (early browser 2.x & 3.x) distracted you till a juicy HTML downloads. Not the stupid Bonzi shit we must live with, a non-tech friend of mine asked me to help him with his computer and I discovered this Bonzi crap, after hours of registry tweaking I managed to remove it, instead of providing a real valuable service their business model is to fuck their customers and ruin there machines and trick them into installing their crap Bonzi, its like selling pizza by stuffing it in your client throat.
Don't misunderstand me, I am a HUGE fan of the first amendment (and an ACLU member).
You are correct. This has nothing to do with the first amendment, nor do most issues where people cry out about it. The first amendment, with relation to freedom of speech, simply states that the GOVERNMENT cannot prevent free speech, except in the cases of public endangerment, fraud, or misrepresentation. Police may not be allowed to stop a 'peaceful protest,' but Joe Citizen can go down and put duct tape over their mouths.**
This case against Bonzi is purely fraud and misrepresentation. They are purposely deceiving potential "clients" in hopes of gaining something of monetary value.
-Ab.
** Putting duct tape over their mouth to shut them up does NOT infringe on their first amendment rights. Private citizens and entities retain the right to regulate speech. It does, however, break other laws, such as simple assault, unlawful detainment, and generally being a prick.
Nothing fails quite like prayer.
it still should require the users' authorization
It does. A properly configured IE (I'm only using IE as an example because that's what the users in question are, with very few exceptions, using) won't install anything on the user's computer without the user's direct permission. One of two things is happening: 1) The user is giving permission without knowing what he/she is doing; 2) The user's IE is set to give permission without asking the user. In either case, it's the user's problem. The default IE behavior may not be the safest, but if you're the type of person to accept the defaults without question then that's your problem.
To put it another way, the default behavior of my car is to not stop when approaching another car. I have to intervene to accomplish this. If you don't know how to operate the machine you're using, don't complain when something goes wrong.
> already a precedent logged in the world's history that says the first company to try to use FUI in a bold way got a public embarassment
I agree with what you said on a theoretical basis, because, of course, you are correct. But I think most small businesses(*), especially those who need to trick the consumer to buy the product, would not look for any legal precedent, let alone settlements, when choosing an advertising method. To those who are not like us, it's just another way to advertise a product -- they don't think of who it will annoy. Well, perhaps they DO consider who it will annoy. "Any advertising is good advertising" is a common idea, and that includes bad press.
I'll point out that none of this makes it "right," just that history has a funny way of repeating itself sometimes.
(*) Really, I don't think most big businesses would use advertising like that anyway
I was curious, if some of you pro computer people could answer. How many of those popup ads are getting written and served up to Windows computers by Linux computers???
HenryJamesFeltus.com
I've never been fooled by the gui lookalikes, because, quite simply, they don't look like my gui.
I've never particularly liked the standard windows colour scheme, so one of the first things I do after installing is change it.
Consequently, a picture of a grey button looks very out of place on my desktop.