Slashdot Mirror


Lenovo Hit With Lawsuit Over Superfish Adware

An anonymous reader writes with news that the fallout from the Superfish fiasco might just be starting for Lenovo. "Lenovo admitted to pre-loading the Superfish adware on some consumer PCs, and unhappy customers are now dragging the company to court on the matter. A proposed class-action suit was filed late last week against Lenovo and Superfish, which charges both companies with 'fraudulent' business practices and of making Lenovo PCs vulnerable to malware and malicious attacks by pre-loading the adware. Plaintiff Jessica Bennett said her laptop was damaged as a result of Superfish, which was called 'spyware' in court documents. She also accused Lenovo and Superfish of invading her privacy and making money by studying her Internet browsing habits."

5 of 114 comments (clear)

  1. good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I hope it costs both of them twice what they earned

  2. Re:Lawyers rejoice!! by Microlith · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Home customers get to see different ads on their screen besides Google's own Adsense garbage. BFD!

    Yeah it's a BFD, Lenovo took money to install an application that deliberately reduced end user security for the sake of inserting ads into their browsing activities! Not only is it completely bereft of ethics and respect for their customers, it's actively dangerous.

    They shouldn't just be hit via a class action suit (assuming Lenovo isn't sticking a "binding arbitration" clause to defeat the ability for consumers to seek recourse) but Federal prosecution under one of the many computer security laws that would string up anyone else.

  3. Re:Read the EULA... the lawsuit has no merit. by hey! · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The issue isn't whether EULAs are *potentially* enforceable. The question is whether *this* EULA is enforceable.

    In general there is no contract unless their is some kind of exchange of "considerations". Typically the consideration is the privilege of using the copyright holder's software. But, if you can show that users don't want to use this software, and that it is installed for the benefit of a third party, there is no exchange of considerations between the end-user and the copyright holder, and therefore no valid contract.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  4. Re:Lawyers rejoice!! by jythie · · Score: 5, Informative

    Which is why it should be a criminal or regulatory investigation instead. However, because of the way our legal system is put together, this kind of DIY justice is pretty much the only option. People resort to class action lawsuits because prosecutors and law enforcement have written themselves out of responsibility and delegated enforcement of such laws to the consumer. Many laws and regulations are ONLY triggerable via class action lawsuit.

  5. Common misconception about class action suits by JoeyRox · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's a common refrain to say that nobody benefits from class action suits except the lawyers. While that may be true for the class litigants themselves it is entirely untrue for the public at large. The purpose of large punitive rewards is to penalize corporate misbehavior and in turn incentivize good behavior. By that measure we all benefit from these suits.