Companies Pay Fines For Advertising In Adware... Still Not Clear How They Broke The Law
from the please-explain dept
Over a year and a half ago, as NY Attorney General Eliot Spitzer was investigating various spyware/adware firms, he noted that he was thinking about going after the advertisers who advertised through adware, but it wasn't entirely clear what they had done that was illegal. It may have been a bad business decision, in that adware ads tend to piss off users a lot more than it's likely to make them happy customers. However, is it really illegal to advertise that way? We had thought that it was more of an attempt to scare various advertisers away from the adware providers -- which was actually accomplished much more successfully by suing the adware firms and having advertisers realize they might not want to do business with firms under investigation for sketchy practices. The FTC took a different approach, threatening to name and shame various advertisers who used adware. Overall, though, as many of the worst adware providers have been sued out of business, we figured the issue was done with. However, Spitzer's successor, Andrew Cuomo, apparently picked up where Spitzer left off, and has convinced Priceline, Travelocity and Cingular to pay fines for advertising in adware. Now, it's hard to feel sympathy for companies that advertised that way (in fact, you might as well fine them for thinking it was a good idea in the first place), but no one has yet explained what it was that these advertisers did that was illegal. No doubt there are plenty of things that the adware firms did that broke certain laws in tricking people into installing their software -- but the advertisers had no say in that side of what was going on, so it's difficult to see what they actually did wrong here.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Due Diligence
Apparently, they didn't do that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Due Diligence
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Agreed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A case can be made
In sending advertising to the consumer the companies are obstructing the ability of the consumer to go about his/her business. I am in the middle of writing a report and an ad pops-up and I have to take time out to eliminate it.
Many of the adware message trespass on your computer and load unauthorized programs. Essential they usurp your private property and turn it into a marketing agent. This is akin to a salesmen believing that he has a right to enter your house without your permission and make a sales pitch at your dinner table while taking the liberty to eat your dinner too.
Three years ago my daughter accidentally hit one of the websites that downloaded a whole bunch of adware, the computer became unusable. It took a couple of days to reinstall the operating system, application programs, and other files. Now, who do I go to get reimbursed for the time and effort it took to fix the computer?????
Finally, if companies do not have the maturity or the ethical standards to be fair to the consumer, then their actions must be constrained through the unpopular action of regulation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
what they did wrong
they didnt spend that kind of money and not realize exactly what was going to be happening. they are as sleezy as the adware company. they deserve whatever punishment they get...
but then, you can't actually fine a company..they simply raise prices to compensate. in essence the consumer pays the fine for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: what they did wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: what they did wrong
Companies usually cannot simply raise prices without seeing a drop in customers. There are a few examples (oil) where this isn't the case, but I have no reason to believe that Cingular and Priceline are in this category. People will move to Sprint, Verizon, etc, or use Hotwire if the prices are inflated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: what they did wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They know what they are doing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
here goes. that's wrong. trespass or whatever. if software installs itself w/o the user being notified, nor having a clean uninstall program, that's wrong.
what happens, methinks, is that companies hire ad agencies to do their marketing. from there, those companies outsource different parts, tv, radio, movies, billboards, internte. through this web of 'contractors" someone says, hey hire a spam agency. the orginal company has plausable deniabilty in the situation, and they get any press generated.
now should companies be fined if their ads are adware? only if they are directly linked to the situation. our legal system has shown you aren't responsable for actions out ofyour control, this is no different.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fines don't work...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
we are alo to blame
screw reading I want my 10,000,000,000 free smileys. not one of my systems gains spyware because im mindful of the users and what gets installed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: we are alo to blame
the little old lady who gives some stranger at a bus stop her life savings as a 'good faith' payment on some 'found lottery ticket' should know better too, as in "if it seems too good to be true it probably isn't", but it's still illegal to take her money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: we are alo to blame
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
it's not legal to spray paint your ad on someone else's property, it shouldn't be legal to install your software through deceptive means on someone else's computer. i have seen what adware & spyware do to computers, and it's nothing less than vandalism.
which is illegal, last time i checked.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
eye opener
In the past I have even sent emails to the company's that permitted lousy advertising practices online. This even includes scams, and places that are not even given a good report by siteadvisor, etc. I often asked them if they knew the place they were advertising was not in good standards online. Sometimes I would receive a reply, but most of the time I got no reply.
I just think it's time we hold companies accountable for whom they do business with. After all they make it a point to check out their customers, why shouldn't they check out the company they want to do business with too?
The fine I am sure was not high enough. I say stick it to em. After all they don't mind sticking it to the customer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Been Advocating this for a long time
As a person who cleans systems of these malware products it is obvious that a lot of legitimate companies were using these malware producers and to claim that they were ignorant of how their ads were getting out, while hoping you'd believe them, is pure contempt for the average person.
Your computer is an extension of your home. People need to realize this. Violating the sanctity of your home with advertising by self proclaimed ignorants is just wrong.
What these companies have done is to enter your home without your permission and plastered the walls with advertisements because they knew your homes were not secure enough to keep them out or you were not knowledgeable enough about how to keep your home more secure.
Even though the State of NY knew what was happening they should have made the companies funding the malware more responsible and earlier. By their not acting earlier they cost American consumers significantly.
Even the DRM/CRM from Microsoft is a violation of your home and your privacy. No more are they entitled to enter your home to search your computers than the police would be. The police require a warrant issued by a court and signed by a Judge. What Microsoft and these other companies are doing is entering your home and spying on your use of the computer and content without your permission or knowledge by implementing DRM/CRM. The average user does not understand these concepts so it is the equivalent of doing it without permission nor knowledge.
Reporting home to Microsoft's servers or checking your validity every 6 months is a violation of your privacy and most likely the law. Not only that their continued checking after having previously verified you were legit is akin to accusing you of being a thief. Why would you ever allow a company to continue to exist in your home if they every 6 months accused you of stealing from them and asked you every 6 months to prove you were not stealing? I doubt anyone would. So, why would you not equate Microsoft's behavior to real life situations? Not only that they are demanding that you report to them your configuration so they can use that against you if you choose fight them. They'll be using information against you that you allowed them to collect even though you didn't know they were collecting it for that purpose.
Remember this when you hear about those business and home computers that are shut down by Vista's DRM and those cases begin to show up in court. Any company other than a monopoly would be seriously question their behavior but because Microsoft has more money in the bank they figure they can use it to fight anything.
Now, when you consider these things remember this: Microsoft stole the intellectual property (IP) from a company that had developed and patented the concept years before. Not only that the Judge, in his ruling, cited numerous occurrences of misconduct on Microsoft's part based on the facts that stated that Microsoft felt that the owner of the IP had no ability to protect their interests and ignored that company when they were informed that they were violating their IP rights.
The case is pretty clear. Microsoft stole the IP used to keep you from stealing their IP and when caught performed numerous acts of misconduct to cover it up. When caught they were fined additional damages of $25 million.
Do you think they would feel any different about you the individual when it comes to them turning off your computer mistakenly? Certainly they will perceive you to be inconsequential and continue unabated. Any normal non-monopoly would certainly think hard enough about it to not implement it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Advertising Network Chains
In addition, I have been called by this spyware companies many times and the way they sell themselves it is not always clear what they are doing -- until you really dig and investigate further (I'm a marketing manager)
Not saying these particular companies did not realize, but for many people putting out online offers it is not always clear exactly where your offer ends up. The bigger brands have the people and resources to track down where there ads show up but many smaller advertisers could easily be duped by the slick sales people who call them and talk about their "network."
In addition, some ad network will have legitimate traffic and then slip in spyware traffic to boost numbers, making it more difficult to determine the direct source of the visitors.
Michael @ SEOG
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
no excuse
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
please in sign up
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
please in sign up
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
adware execs
Or perhaps this solution: apply graphic and animation software to their images, identify them clearly, and create "real" movies of these jerks spitting on the Koran or some such - and make sure Islamic radicals know about it. That way, we'd be rid of scum, and they (the rads) would have somebody to butcher. Now that's a win-win!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]