Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FTC Shuts Down Fraudulent Antispyware Company

Posted by timothy on from the click-here-to-remove-viruses dept.

spewey writes "The Federal Trade Commission has shut down MaxTheater, Inc., alleging the company participated in fraudulent practices with its Spyware Assassin site, which purportedly scanned user machines for spyware and reported infections, even though no scan was done and in most cases, the user machine was clean. The site then offered the user a $30 product to remove the spyware, which the commission reports 'didn't do a thing.'"

7 of 198 comments (clear)

  1. Interesting to note... by yuriismaster · · Score: 5, Insightful

    FTA:

    "[MaxTheatre's Media] represent that they have "scanned" or otherwise examined the consumer's computer and have detected that spyware already resides on it."

    I smell precedence!

    Almost every single pop-up ad proclaims to have found spyware on my machine, and not all of them are SpywareAssassin. Can we use this to take down other phony antispyware companies?

    1. Re:Interesting to note... by TheSpoom · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Hmm... Taking this a step further, wouldn't this also apply to those banner ads that look like a Windows dialog box saying that "viruses / spyware / adware / slowness / ... have been found on your machine, click here to remove / speed up"?

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
  2. Re:I'm Confused, Tell Me what to Think by Tyler+Eaves · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You're confused. The FTC is probably one of the most useful and generally non-sucky government agencies. It's like the various state attorney generals offices on a larger scale. Bascailly all they do is shut down scams and the like. You're thinking of the evil that is the F*C*C. No relation, other than both being government agencies.

    --
    TODO: Something witty here...
  3. "Shut down" is not enough by sdo1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There needs to be SEVERE penalties to discourage others from picking up where this left off. I vote for jail time for the company executives AND those developers who knew exactly what they were doing (or in this case, weren't doing).

    The risk/reward ratio is still tilting too far toward reward for those who would defraud others using the internet.

    -S

    --
    --- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
  4. So why can't the FTC go after... by jasonmicron · · Score: 4, Insightful

    CoolWebSearch / Adzilla / Look2Me / Miraclesearch?

    Personally I see this as doing really nothing for (or against) spyware.

  5. Fallback... by jemenake · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I guess it's back to the automotive repair buisiness for *those* guys.

    Honestly, when I read this, I had flashbacks to all of those TV news investigative reports of mechanics, exterminators, plumbers, etc. who climb under/behind your car/sink/house and come back with "evidence" of a problem that you need to pay them $$$ to fix.

    So... back to the auto shops with the bums! That's what I say! :)

  6. Re:Government interferes with business yet again by ocbwilg · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If someone wants to buy a "spirit healing rock" from me, why shouldn't he be able to? If he's dumb enough to buy it, well, what do they say about a fool and his money?

    There's a difference between making vague, general, or unproveable claims (one way or another) and outright fraud. A "spirit healing rock" can't be tested to prove what it actually does. You could advertise the rock as "using mystical powers to make you feel better" and probably get away with it. But the moment you slap on a claim that is demonstrably false like "this rock uses mystical powers to cure cancer" then you are committing fraud and will likely get busted.

    And while it's awfully popular right now to complain about "government interfering with business", I think that most people realize that a certain amount of "interference" (Republican-speak for "oversight") is desirable to protect the populace from criminaly fraudulent behavior. I don't recall anybody complaining about government interfering with business in cases like Enron, Worldcom, Tyco, Healthsouth, Global Crossing, etc. Neither do I recall much complaining when the government bailed out the airlines after 9/11 to keep them in business.