Shady Anti-Spyware Developer Loses Lawsuit Against Competitor Who Flagged Its Software As Malicious
from the respect-us,-they-sued dept
Enigma Software makes Spyhunter, a malware-fighting program with a very questionable reputation. But the company isn't known so much for containing threats as it's known for issuing threats. It sued a review site for having the audacity to suggest its pay-to-clean anti-spyware software wasn't a good fit for most users… or really any users at all.
Bleeping Computer found itself served with a defamation lawsuit for making fact-based claims (with links to supporting evidence) about Enigma's dubious product, dubious customer service tactics (like the always-popular "auto-renew"), and dubious lawsuits. Somehow, this dubious lawsuit managed to survive a motion to dismiss. Fortunately, Bleeping Computer was propped up by Malwarebytes' developers, who tossed $5,000 into Bleeping Computer's legal defense fund.
The developers of this more highly-regarded anti-malware program soon found themselves facing the litigious wrath of Enigma, which apparently makes enough from its pay-to-clean, auto-renewing, subscription-based Spyhunter program to keeps lawyers busy all the damn time.
Enigma decided to sue Malwarebytes for felony interference with a business model, a.k.a., "tortious interference." According to Enigma, it was unfair and retaliatory for Malwarebytes to treat its software as a threat to users and remove it from computers when performing scans.
The judge, fortunately, did not agree. Malwarebytes has emerged victorious [PDF] in a lawsuit that began with unfair business practices allegations before somehow morphing into an argument about the limits of Section 230 immunity.
Malwarebytes cited a Ninth Circuit Appeals Court decision which dealt with the actions of another anti-malware provider, Kaspersky. In that case, Kaspersky availed itself of Section 230 immunity to dismiss claims made by Zango, an adware pusher. As Malwarebytes points out, the Appeals Court found Kaspersky's blocking of Zango's adware to be immune from Zango's claims of interference, reasoning that the removal of objectionable software is pretty much equivalent to removing objectionable content. Efforts made to police software/content do not strip providers and publishers of immunity.
Enigma argued the decision clearly stated the removed material must be "content that the provider or user considers obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable." It claimed its software fell under none of those headings. The district court disagrees:
Enigma overlooks Zango’s clear holding that § 230(c)(2)(B) immunity applies to “a provider of computer services that makes available software that filters or screens material that the user or the provider deems objectionable.”
[...]
This interpretation of Zango aligns with the plain language of the statute, which likewise states that immunity applies to “material that the provider or user considers to be . . . objectionable.” 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(2)(A) (emphasis added). In Zango, the provider of the anti-malware software, Kaspersky, exercised its discretion to select the criteria it would use to identify objectionable computer programs. The Ninth Circuit held that malware, as Kaspersky defined it, was properly within the scope of “objectionable” material. In that respect, the Court agrees with Malwarebytes that Zango is factually indistinguishable from the scenario here.
In its final attempt to skirt Section 230 immunity, Enigma attempted to resculpt its arguments into a half-assed Lanham Act complaint. But the court has zero sympathy for Enigma's attempt to drag trademark into this.
Enigma’s argument fails because its complaint does not allege an intellectual property claim. The Lanham Act contains two parts: one governing trademark infringement (15 U.S.C. § 1114) and one governing unfair competition (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)). The unfair competition provision, in turn, “creates two distinct bases of liability”: one governing false association (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(A)) and one governing false advertising (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(B)). Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1377, 1384 (2014). Enigma’s complaint asserts a false advertising claim under § 1125(a)(1)(B). FAC ¶ 135.
Enigma does not assert claims under the trademark provisions of the Lanham Act. The complaint does not allege that Enigma owns trademarks or any other form of intellectual property, nor does it allege that Malwarebytes has committed any form of intellectual property infringement, including misuse of its trademarks. Accordingly, the Court finds that Enigma’s false advertising claim under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(B), does not arise under a “law pertaining to intellectual property” under 47 U.S.C. § 230(e)(2).
Enigma loses, Malwarebytes wins, and status remains quo until the inevitable appeal. Enigma seems to believe it can sue its way into respectability -- somehow failing to realize every lawsuit against competitors and critics moves it several steps in the opposite direction.
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
Filed Under: lists, malware, reviews, scans, spyhunter, tortious interference
Companies: bleeping computer, enigma, malwarebytes
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
The new Scarlet Letter
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Like Kaspersky, Malwarebytes was not afraid to take on the shady bundleware industry, showing that its first and only duty was protecting the consumer (even from the consumer's own incompetence) EULAs be damned.
It was a shame (but not surprising) that the big antivirus companies almost always turned a blind eye to corporate-backed malware, leading to the emergence of grass roots startups like Malwarebytes whose original focus was identifying and removing the malware green-lighted by the big AV companies.
As the good folks of Techdirt discovered, those who stand up for principles and ideals by calling out bad actors can expect to get sued, and those who fight will usually prevail in the end.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dead Parrot Sketch, Enigma Software Edition
Bleeping Computer: I wish to make a complaint!
Enigma Software: We're closin' for lunch.
Bleeping Computer: Never mind that, my lad. I wish to complain about this anti-spyware software what I purchased not half an hour ago from this very boutique.
Enigma Software: Oh yes, uh, Spyhunter...What's, uh... What's wrong with it?
Bleeping Computer: I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lad. It's useless, that's what's wrong with it!
Enigma Software: No, no, that's uh,... that's defamation.
Bleeping Computer: Look, matey, a negative review is protected free speech, and this negative review is well earned.
Enigma Software: No no it's not free speech, it's defamation! Remarkable software, Spyhunter, idn'it, ay? Beautiful UI!
Bleeping Computer: The UI don't enter into it. It's stone useless.
Enigma Software: It's a legitimate product! That's just your opinion, and it's defamation!
Bleeping Computer: All right then, let's see what others think about it! (Runs Malwarebytes) (Malwarebyes declares it a threat and removes it.)
Owner: That's tortious interference, that is!
Bleeping Computer: No, it's an accurate assessment based on its uselessness, not to mention your other business practices!
Enigma Software: It's felony interference with a business model!
Bleeping Computer: It isn't. Your product is useless! Ineffectual! Pointless! Hopeless! Fruitless! Incapable! Incompetant! Inept! Inadequate! If you weren't charging people for automatic renewals in perpetuity, you'd go under! This product protects users like Ajit Pai protects consumers!
Enigma Software: I never wanted to do this in the first place. I wanted to be... a DRM provider!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Reminds me of something
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Dead Parrot Sketch, Enigma Software Edition
It's like Zaaaaango to Kaspersky
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, etc.
Also see Rowan v. United States Post Office Department, which held that courts cannot object to someone's characterization as "erotically arousing or sexually provocative" (which is apparently the only way to get Dell to stop sending junk mail).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Enigma...you just met her
[ link to this | view in thread ]
No, Malwarebytes lost, not won
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Cuck Frapware
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Dead Parrot Sketch, Enigma Software Edition
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Cuck Frapware
Because as we all know, OEM's never try to hide malware in their code.... right ? [slysmile]
[ link to this | view in thread ]