The suit against
Direct Revenue, filed with the Supreme Court for the State of New
York, seeks an order prohibiting the firm from secretly installing
spyware or sending ads through already-installed spyware. The suit
also asks the court to compel the company to provide an accounting
of its revenues and to impose appropriate monetary penalties.
"Surreptitiously installed spyware and adware harm consumers and
businesses, and my office will continue to prosecute these
practices aggressively," said Spitzer. "These applications are
deceptive and unfair to consumers, bad for businesses that rely on
efficient networks to do their jobs, and bad for online retailers
that need consumers to trust and enjoy their online
experience."
The suit is the latest in a series of spyware related actions
filed by Spitzer, who last year settled a suit against adware
distributor Intermix Media for the sum of $7.5 million.
Spitzer says that the current action follows an extensive
investigation in which the Attorney General's office documented
Direct Revenue's practice of installing advertising software on
computers without proper notice.
In many cases, the suit alleges, these spyware installations
were instigated when Direct Revenue (or one of its distributors)
advertised ‘free’ applications (such as games or browser
‘enhancement’ software), omitting reference to the spyware that
would accompany any downloaded application.
Once consumers downloaded these ‘free’ applications, however,
surreptitious code placed on their computers caused Direct
Revenue's own servers to install its spyware, without notice to
consumers.
The Attorney General's office also recorded several instances in
which Direct Revenue's spyware was installed through silent
‘drive-by-downloads,’ i.e., downloads that took place without any
notice at all to consumers.
In addition, Spitzer's office's investigation revealed that
Direct Revenue and its officers deliberately designed spyware that,
once downloaded, was extremely difficult for users to detect and
remove. In many cases, the spyware reinstalled itself after removal
by users.
The suit specifically names, and seeks relief and penalties
from, the company's founders and chief officers Joshua Abram, Alan
Murray, Daniel Kaufman, and Rodney Hook.
Ari Schwartz, Deputy Director of rights group, the Center for
Democracy and Technology, welcomed the action.
“Aggressive law enforcement is an essential component in the
ongoing fight to stem the tide of unwanted spyware,” he said. “We
applaud Attorney General Spitzer for attacking this problem at its
source and for sending a message that years of illegal behaviour
will not go unanswered.”
A spokesperson for Direct Revenue called the suit “a baseless
attempt by the Office of the Attorney General to rewrite the rules
of the adware business.”
“This suit complains solely about past practices - practices, in
fact, that were consistent with those of virtually all of the
leading players in the rapidly evolving adware industry, including
some publicly-traded companies much larger than Direct Revenue,”
said the spokesperson. “The OAG knows that none of the challenged
practices have been in use for at least six months and that this
case will change nothing about our business model going
forward.”
Disclaimer: We hope you find OUT-LAW’s content useful. It’s prepared by the lawyers at Pinsent Masons. Please remember, though, that it’s intended as general information only. It’s not legal advice. If that’s what you’re seeking, please
contact us. See also: our
full disclaimer
