Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Judge OKs Competitive Pop-Up Ads

Posted by timothy on from the quandary dept.

Mirkon writes "A while back, U-Haul filed suit against adware giant WhenU for displaying competing advertisements to users as they browsed U-Haul's site. Friday, District Judge Gerald Bruce Lee's ruling dismissed U-Haul's suit, saying '...the fact is that the computer user consented to this detour when the user downloaded WhenU's computer software from the Internet,' and 'Alas, we computer users must endure pop-up advertising along with her ugly brother, unsolicited bulk e-mail, "spam," as a burden of using the Internet.' While the ruling was issued in the context of unfair competitive marketing, it's speculated that this will have broad implications in the fight against adware - and they aren't kind to the user. WhenU chief executive Avi Naider is unfortunately quoted as saying 'This is a victory for consumer choice -- it ultimately protects consumers' right to control what they see on their computer screens.'"

8 of 373 comments (clear)

  1. Popup? what popup? by deadmongrel · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I haven't seen one pop up since I started using mozilla. That my friend is "controlling what I want to see"

    1. Re:Popup? what popup? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's a good thing this decision didn't go the other way, or popup blockers like Mozilla or Google Toolbar could be ruled illegal.

      The decision was that the end user has the right to control what advertising content he or she sees when browsing the Internet.

  2. Ironic by Mad-cat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    'This is a victory for consumer choice -- it ultimately protects consumers' right to control what they see on their computer screens.'

    Considering that many ad-ware and spy systems disguise themselves as fun download toys or much needed upgrades...

    1. Re:Ironic by Ignis+Flatus · · Score: 5, Informative

      When running either Spybot or AdAware (can't remember which right now), it detected spyware on my machine that was implanted when I installed a wireless mouse and keyboard from Logitech. So, those are the dangers we face now. Every time we add a peripheral to our machines, we could unwittingly be installing a trojan program. Probably, there was mention of the trojan somewhere in the EULA, but I personally take this as an act of aggression by the device manufacturer.

  3. Re:Popups? What are those? by AntiOrganic · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I haven't received one popup since I started using an old version of Opera years ago.

  4. Stupid EULAs still count... may the browser beware by LostCluster · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Here's the headline: As much as WhenU's invasive popups and banner ad coverups stink, you have a right to have software do whatever you want to the websites you view. You also have the right to agree to any EULA you want. So, if you install a program that has an EULA that says it's gonna kidnap your web browser, and you say yes, you're stuck with it.

    U-Haul can't go to court and say that WhenU is interfering with their website when their program pops up competitor's ads when you visit U-Haul's site. U-Haul's site isn't being hacked, it's just that the user is using a program that supplies the ads. You're free to run any ad blocking, subtracting, or adding program you want. And WhenU isn't hacking anybody's machine, their EULA says what they're gonna do so no crying foul when they actually do it.

    Yep, as dump as WhenU's program is, if you click "Yes" on an EULA you're presumed to have read it and presumed to understand it and presumed to have liked it. Let the browser beware, if you welcome a adbot onto your system, nobody's gonna save you from yourself.

  5. I hate to say it... by Cody+Hatch · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...but this is a good thing. The overall thrust of the ruling is that you can install software that does things large companies don't like - specifically, that interfere with their marketing alerts you to competitors offers, and otherwise helps you (at least in theory). This is good - if you doubt it, imagine the reverse. What if U-Haul had WON, and now there was a precedent saying that U-Haul got to micromanage my desktop and browsing experience at that level?

    The specific details of the ruling benefits some nasty adware, sure - but the problems with the adware aren't that it pops up ads - there's nothing wrong, per se, with software that does that - IF YOU WANT TO INSTALL THAT SOFTWARE. (Sorry for shouting.) What's wrong is the deceptive tricks used to get the adware installed, and that is NOT at all related to the decision. I dislike WhenU, and have no beef with U-Haul, but this was still the right decision.

    I'll say it again - a judge just ruled that you have the rights of control over your browsing experience that you'd expect. This is good. Step two, of course, is getting some rulings mandating disclosure and truth-in-advertising for the adware providers, but that is, and should be, a seperate issue.

  6. Are dumb laws better than no laws? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Basically, this case decided that *U-Haul* couldn't complain against WhenU's system on the grounds they chose to argue. This is a good thing; if a system *like* WhenU's existed that *didn't* suck - say, a Mozilla sidebar that would automatically Pricewatch search for you; heck, "What's Related..." is even closer - we wouldn't want the 'big bad company' controlling our viewing. If you can't run WhenU, then should you be able to run a word processor, when you could be using it to complain about a product? Do we have to prove 'substantial non-infringing use' for *every* software on our machines before we can visit corporate sites?

    But on the same token, yes, WhenU sucks. So file a separate lawsuit, targeting the deceptive *installation* practices, not the content. And if you lose that one, petition for laws against deceptive installations, not laws protecting corporate interests.

    Why's this so hard?