Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

L.L. Bean Suing Competitors For Spyware-Linked Ads

Posted by timothy on from the good-hunting dept.

httpamphibio.us writes "According to this article on CNN, L.L. Bean is suing 'Nordstrom and three other companies it alleges used pop-up ads that appeared when some customers visited the clothier and outdoor gear retailer's Web site.' The article mentions Claria Corp, a maker of spyware . This is an interesting route to go about getting rid of spyware, attacking its source of income instead of the manufacturer."

11 of 268 comments (clear)

  1. taking the high road by chaos421 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    i'm glad to hear that there are companies out there who are against acosting their customers with guerilla-advertising. i tip my hat...

    1. Re:taking the high road by sg_oneill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      do you honestly believe any company is not interested in guerilla-advertising?

      Not sure which mod smoked crack and decided above comment was flamebait. Theres still a corpus of truth to it in some way.

      Most companies , given the chance, would love it if spam/popups/whatever worked and didnt irritate the living shit out folks. *however* that does NOT mean the same-said company knows full well it pisses off customers and therefore won't go near it with a ten foot pole.

      Personally, popup ads will tend to mean I'll never buy something from the company, both on principle (stop shitting over my desktop popup advertisers!) and because I worry about the potential ethics of said company (if they are prepared to kick my door in and force me to watch ads, will they run off with my wallet also?). However from time to time, I'll click out of curiosity on a tasteful non intrusive banner, specifically the google style text ones that arent in the face and are informative.

      Alot of dot coms are wising up to this and are using 'guerilla advertising' methods that wont piss me off.

      I'd like one of these days to see something like a consumers manifesto; sorta like

      I The customer do declare I will NOT buy your stuff when you;-
      1) Spam me
      2) Open up windows I do not want
      3) Show my children pornography
      4) Take over my screen
      5) Crap on my psyche
      6) Treat me like an idiot.
      Follow these rules and I may, just may, buy your widget! Break these rules and forever lose my custom.
      Signed;- Joe consumer.

      Whatya think? Maybe its time customers made OUR rules for 'guerilla marketing'?

      --
      Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
  2. Okay, now this is dirty by dev_alac · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Would you allow a competitor to advertise inside a brick and mortar store? I can fully understand why Beans is doing this. I'd be pissed too. But I'm not sure how much of a case they'd have.

    There might have to be some reform on the internet advertising agencies' part here. Anyone know more about how they're set up?

  3. Good Idea, bad timing by Avihson · · Score: 5, Insightful

    With the way the court system works, the offending companies will be long gone - merged or bankrupt and IPv7 will be in beta before this practice is found to be a violation.

    Maybe my grandkids will benefit.

  4. Uh oh...strange precedents by Eberlin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Isn't this almost similar to getting yourself one of those membership-style "club cards" for supermarkets where they collect data on you, then print out coupons for products competing with those you've purchased? You know, the ones that print coke coupons when they ring up a pepsi. What will this mean to THAT industry? Will Pepsi sue Coke for advertising directly to their customers? I'm not sure that'll go over very well.

    In other news...I run Mozilla -- so what popups? :)

    1. Re:Uh oh...strange precedents by obeythefist · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Loyalty programmes do track and gather a vast amount of information about consumers, which is why I stopped using one.

      They follow a pretty similar method if you think about it. Flybuys and other programmes offer "frequent flyer points" as a reward, and they make it look like loyalty is the reason for it, but in reality it's the great market research they get.

      Likewise, Claria and the like offer you a service, like Bonzi Buddy (choke) or keeping your system time in check (like that's not inbuilt in just about every O/S out there) or "You're computer is broadcasting an IP Address OMG OMG hackers lol!". Or in fact just by duping you so you click through the software install agreement when you foolishly used internet exploder to open just about any web page. Or by bundling the software with a shareware/freeware application (Like CuteFTP, a sinister betrayal that was).

      Then the business model kicks into swing once you're duped in.

      1) Offer incentive
      2) Spy
      3) Advertise
      4) Profit!

      --
      I am government man, come from the government. The government has sent me. -- G.I.R.
  5. probably won't work, but still good news by The_Bagman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Just like with peer-to-peer file-sharing software, there's an interesting debate here about whether companies like Gator should be free to manufacture and distribute software that ostensibly causes damage to certain population segements. For P2P software, the damage is supposedly to the recording industry. For spyware, the damage is supposedly to the consumer and to companies whose brands are targeted by adware.

    I'd hate to see the right to produce software get eroded, but on the other hand, something's gotta be done about spyware. This is an interesting approach: go after those that use the spyware (the companies that deliver ads through it) rather than those that vend the spyware. This has similarities to the recording industry going after those that use P2P to violate copyrights instead of those that vend P2P software.

    But, my hunch is that displaying brand-targeting ads is a harder sell as illegal activity than distributing media you don't have rights to...

  6. Ahh to fight the good fight by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 5, Insightful

    While I applaud LL Bean for taking an interesting tact here, I personally wish for their case to be dismissed.

    There are a couple very important issues here...
    Gator is NOT rewritting the actual webpage, it's only providing additional "pop-ups" in seperate windows that are targeted towards their "users" browsing habits. Essentially, they can claim they are providing a service by saying "ohhh, hey there lil user-buddy, looks like you're trying to buy a parka at LL Bean, perhaps we can interest you in this other parka over at Nordstroms", there is nothing wrong with that! Google does it all the time, Amazon does it... hell name one internet portal that does not provide alternatives based upon your current browsing parameters.

    While I might not care for Gator/Claria/Satan, I do respect that until laws are passed that clearly define their behavior as illegal or somehow restrict their behavior and they defy those laws/restrictions, there is very little the courts will be able to do.

    The users desktop does not become the property of LL Bean when a user goes to their website. Whatever happens on the desktop in a seperate window MUST be considered the consent of the user and LL Bean's claims should be dismissed as baseless.

    Any action barring the display of competitors ads would threaten to destroy the advertising models of practically every internet portal in the US. and even more threatening... allow sites such as Google and Amazon to be flooded by lawsuits.

  7. Re:taking the high road(?); Careful what you wish by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Unfortunately, you may be creating a precedent so that method cannot be used to distribute any content.

    So what? Try applying your argument to the guy in the street with a loudspeaker at 2 a.m., to telemarketers, to someone spraypainting on your walls, to somebody inserting propaganda into school textbooks... The first amendment doesn't give people the right to do whatever they want.
    --

    How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
  8. Corporations taking advantage of spy/adware by oneiron · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Hmm.. I've never been infected with spyware or adware, and I'm just a little bit astonished to find that well known corporations such as Nordstroms utilize these types of tools. I would love to have a list of companies using this type of stuff so I could choose to spend money elsewhere. If such a list does not already exist, someone should definitely create one.

  9. The Internet lives beyond the US of A, ya know by k2dbk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Not only is the First Amendment of the United States Constitution probably not applicable in this context to corporations, but it's certainly not applicable outside the United States. Further, as noted below, freedom of speech doesn't mean "freedom to do anything you damn please". The oft-mentioned statement about not yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre (unless applicable to the situation) would apply in this case, in that doing harm purely for some form of personal (or corporate) gain can't be hidden under the first amendment rights cloak.