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."
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
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.)
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.