Section 230 Doesn’t Apply to “Refer-a-Friend” Text Message–Jensen v. Capital One
Capital One has a “refer-a-friend” program for its customers. Capital One provides its customers with promotional content and a customer-specific referral URL. Customers can edit the content as they see fit, then send it to their friends (or their enemies…
This Case Keeps Wrecking Internet Law–Enigma v. Malwarebytes
You probably know this case well, but I’ll recap it anyway. Malwarebytes makes anti-threat software. Enigma makes competitive offerings. Malwarebytes classified Enigma’s SpyHunter4 and RegHunter2 programs as malicious, a threat, and a potentially unwanted program (PUP). This screenshot shows Malwarebytes’…
Web Page Framing Isn’t Trespass to Chattels–Best Carpet Values v. Google
This case is an old-school turn-of-the-century throwback (and not the good kind). Google’s search app framed the web pages users visit, and the frame included ads. Some screenshots depicting the framing (the first image shows Google’s superimposed frame on the…
The 9th Circuit Keeps Trying to Ruin Cybersecurity–Enigma v. Malwarebytes
This case involves two anti-threat software vendors, Enigma and Malwarebytes. In 2016, Malwarebytes classified Enigma’s software as “malicious,” a “threat,” and a “potentially unwanted program” (or PUP), because the programs allegedly were “scareware.” Enigma challenged Malwarebytes’ classifications in court. Initially,…
If “Trespass to Chattels” Isn’t Limited to “Chattels,” Anarchy Ensues–Best Carpet Values v. Google
Trigger warning: this is a terrible opinion. Let’s hope the judge corrects his errors or that the appeals court does it for him. * * * This opinion addresses a venerable issue in Internet Law: can a website control how…
As Expected, Malwarebytes Defeats Enigma’s Lawsuit Without Section 230’s Help
Malwarebytes and Enigma offer competitive anti-threat software. Malwarebytes classified Enigma’s software as a “potentially unwanted program,” or PUP, and quarantined the programs. Enigma sued Malwarebytes for that classification/quarantine. Initially, the district court dismissed the case on Section 230(c)(2)(B) grounds. In…
Justice Thomas Writes a Misguided Anti-Section 230 Statement “Without the Benefit of Briefing”–Enigma v. Malwarebytes
Last year, the Ninth Circuit ruled that a plaintiff could plead around Section 230(c)(2)(B), the safe harbor for providing filtering instructions, by claiming that the filtering was motivated by anticompetitive animus. Last week, the Supreme Court denied certiorari. This isn’t…
Cybersecurity Experts Support Supreme Court Review of Enigma v. Malwarebytes Ruling on Section 230(c)(2)(B)
On Friday, 14 cybersecurity experts filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court, supporting Malwarebytes’ certiorari petition to review the Ninth Circuit’s 2019 Enigma v. Malwarebytes ruling regarding 47 U.S.C. 230(c)(2)(B)’s application to spyware classification decisions. The Juelsgaard Intellectual…
Section 230 Protects Classifying Non-Competitive Software as a Threat–Asurvio v. Malwarebytes
Section 230(c)(2)(B) says that filtering software makers aren’t liable for their classification decisions. This proposition provides the legal foundation for the anti-threat software industry. However, those expectations were disrupted by the Ninth Circuit’s 2019 in Enigma v. Malwarebytes, which held…
Ninth Circuit Doubles Down on Bad Ruling That Undermines Cybersecurity–Enigma v. Malwarebytes
This case involves rival makers of anti-threat software. The defendant, Malwarebytes, classified its rival’s software as a PUP, or Potentially Unwanted Program. The rival sued. Malwarebytes defended on 47 USC 230(c)(2)(B), which provides a safe harbor for filtering software. Malwarebytes…