Slashdot Mirror
Anti-Spyware Law Snags Anti-Spyware Vendor
Country Lawyer writes "Washington state's anti-spyware law has just resulted in a $1 million victory for the state, the first successful prosecution under the new law. The weird thing? They sued an anti-spyware vendor." From the article: "Washington State went after the company after 1,145 state residents purchased the software and the complaints began rolling in. Secure Computer president Paul Burke will now pay $200,000 in penalties, make $75,000 worth of restitution to Washington residents, and pay another $725,000 to cover the state's attorneys' fees. The irony of an anti-spyware law being used against an anti-spyware vendor was not commented upon."
FTFA: "The dubious marketing tactics did not end there. Secure Computer also sold its product using pop-up ads which warned users that their computers might be infected with spyware, and it offered them a free system scan. The results of the scan were invariably positive. "Our investigation found that this so-called free scan always detected spyware, even on a clean computer," said Senior Counsel Paula Selis, who led the state investigation. "In order to remove this falsely detected spyware, users were instructed to pay $49.95 for the full version of Spyware Cleaner." It is illegal under Washington law to "induce a computer user to download software by falsely claiming the software is necessary for security purposes," she added."
I was kind of tired of seeing stuff like they used....
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
These guys used bullshit popups in web browsers to convince people they needed to buy an Anti-Spyware product. Go get'em Washington.
There is a war going on for your mind.
They spammed and pop-up advertised with no opt-out.
They made false claims as to a limited time offer.
They provided free scans that resulted in a false-positives.
They offered upgrades to a "pro" version of a product that was essentially the same as already purchased.
Say what you want about over-regulation, but these guys seemed a perfect target for these type laws. Has nothing to do with their supposed status as anti-spyware vendor.
The irony of going after a spyware vendor ends once you discover that they're spamming lying scum:
"...their "Spyware Cleaner" product had, well, a couple of flaws: it didn't work well, it deleted a user's Hosts file after installation, and it tried to convince users to "upgrade" to another program that did essentially the same thing.
But it was the way that Spyware Cleaner was marketed that attracted the Attorney General's attention in the first place. The company allegedly spammed users to advertise its product, included deceptive subject lines, failed to include an opt-out mechanism, and suggested that the product was "discounted" for a "limited time," when in reality it was always available for the same price.
The dubious marketing tactics did not end there. Secure Computer also sold its product using pop-up ads which warned users that their computers might be infected with spyware, and it offered them a free system scan. The results of the scan were invariably positive. "Our investigation found that this so-called free scan always detected spyware, even on a clean computer," said Senior Counsel Paula Selis, who led the state investigation. "In order to remove this falsely detected spyware, users were instructed to pay $49.95 for the full version of Spyware Cleaner." It is illegal under Washington law to "induce a computer user to download software by falsely claiming the software is necessary for security purposes," she added.
Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
7 lawyers making $100/hour working about 6 months (40 hours workweeks, no overtime) would account for it.
Not to mention their legal staff. Evidence aquisition. Etc. Should they have sought a larger penalty? Sure. But don't underpay the lawyers just because the penalty is low.
It was NOT a ruling, it was a settlement. HUGE difference. The most important is that no "precedence" has been set. What that basically means is that this case cannot be used in the future to help in the prosecution of other offenders.
Is it a beginning? Yes. Does it move us closer to being able to prosecute others? No.
While I applaude the state of Washington on bringing charges in the first place, I think that they did the people of the state a disservice by settling. It seemed they had a pretty solid case yet caved at the last moment.
I suspect that what happened is that someone decided that in order to collect ANY funds from the company, they had to settle. Otherwise, the defendants attorneys would have "used" up all the funds in an effort to defend the company leaving none for the "fines".
Attorneys have been known to obfuscate, delay and appeal cases all in the name of extending their own value, and thus, their fees.
Assume a billable rate of $150 per hour, which is more than the average general practice firm charges, but far less than the $300+ that big city specialist firms charge for their most experienced people. At the $150 rate, it takes only 4834 billable hours to to get to $725K, and that is excluding expenses (expert witnesses, courier services, etc.).
With 2000 work hours per year, that is less than three attnys full time for a year. With a case that complicated, and testing a new law (so they REALLY want to get it right to set the good prescedent), this doesn't seem unreasonable.
Of course, I'm sure he doesn't get a discount, or get to nit-pick the bill either.