Ebates Sued for Trespass to Chattels–Sotelo v. Ebates

By Eric Goldman Sotelo v. Ebates Shopping.com, No. 06C-2531 (N.D. Ill. complaint filed May 5, 2006) The Collins Law Firm has filed a third class action lawsuit over adware, this time targeting Ebate’s Moe Money Maker client software. The complaint…

Junk Fax Doesn’t Create Conversion Claim–Edwards v. Emperor’s Garden

By Eric Goldman Edwards v. Emperor’s Garden Restaurant, 130 P.3d 1280 (Nev. Mar. 30, 2006) Defendants sent a single junk fax to the (pro se) plaintiff. The plaintiff sued for a variety of causes of action, including conversion and private…

Second Anti-Adware Lawsuit Survives Motion to Dismiss–Kerrins v. Intermix Media

By Eric Goldman Kerrins v. Intermix Media, Inc., No. 2:05-cv-05408-RGK-SS (C.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2006) Blogging the latest developments in anti-adware/anti-spyware lawsuits has become a full-time job, which is why I’ve fallen behind. I’m now aware of 5 anti-adware class…

Spyware Litigation Recap

By Eric Goldman There’s been an explosion of litigation involving spyware/adware–so much that I’ve not been able to blog it all on a timely basis. This post “catches up” some of the lawsuits from the last couple of months. In…

Sony, DRM and Trespass to Chattels

By Eric Goldman A minor storm is brewing over Sony’s installation of DRM software on users’ computers when they play Sony’s CDs. Sony’s software is installed as a “rootkit,” a difficult-to-remove installation, and it supports Sony’s DRM, which really irritates…

Second Anti-Adware Class Action Filed–Simios v. 180Solutions

By Eric Goldman Simios v. 180Solutions, Inc., No. 05C 5235 (N.D. Ill. complaint filed Sept. 13, 2005). This complaint isn’t “new” news; Suzi blogged about it 10 days ago. This is the second anti-spyware class action lawsuit initiated by David…

Downloading Software onto Home Computer May Be Trespass to Chattels–Sotelo v. DirectRevenue

Sotelo v. DirectRevenue LLC, No. 05 C 2562 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 29, 2005). It was pretty obvious when the complaint was filed in March that this lawsuit warranted careful scrutiny. This initial ruling reinforces that point. This ruling is interesting…