Out-Law News 2 min. read

Gator attacked by publishers over pop-up ads


Major US publishers this week sued Gator, a business that, in effect, sells advertising space on third party web sites – without the authorisation of those third parties. However, the lawsuit raises the question of who should control what a user sees on the internet.

Gator.com offers a free download that comes in two parts. First, there is a Form Helper, a piece of software that automatically completes on-line forms with stored information. The other part of Gator is an OfferCompanion, which monitors web surfing and delivers targeted pop-up ads. For example, if visiting Amazon.com today, Gator will display an advert for a rival site, Half.com, offering books, movies, music and games, with “everything for 1/2 price!”

The Gator Corporation claims that its service has 22 million users, although many are acquired because the company has deals with other sites offering downloads which will bundle Gator’s software with applications such as KaZaA, the P2P file-sharing service.

The Washington Post, Tribune Interactive, The New York Times, Dow Jones and six other publishers this week sued Gator in a Virginia federal court, alleging copyright and trade mark infringements and unfair competition. The filing describes Gator as “essentially a parasite on the web that rides on the hard work and the investments of [the publishers] and other web site owners.”

The publishers argue that Gator’s delivery of ads is altering the intended display of a web page that is protected by copyright. They are seeking an injunction to stop Gator continuing its practices, and damages.

Gator has already toned down its practices. Until last year, it would recognise a banner ad on a web site and obscure that ad with a different ad of the same dimensions from one of its own advertisers. The Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB) criticised Gator.

In response, Gator sued the IAB for “libellously disparaging its service” and causing the company to lose sales. Gator later settled its dispute with the IAB out of court, agreeing to stop obscuring the banners of others.

A major problem for the publishers will be the question of who should control what a user can see on a web page.

Struan Robertson, editor of OUT-LAW.COM, said:

“By downloading the software, users accept Gator’s practice – albeit the detail is contained in a long licence agreement which few are likely to read. If at any time they get tired of Gator, they can simply uninstall the software.

“Effectively, Gator is giving the internet user new powers to control what he sees on a web site. Aggrieved advertisers and web site operators may struggle to stop that because the user already has wide powers to control what he sees. For example, it’s easy to set your browser to disable all graphics, which in effect cancels all banner ads, thereby altering the intended display of a web page.”

Gator's CEO Jeff McFadden said yesterday:

"We're highly confident that the allegations made by the plaintiffs are utterly baseless, and that the business practices we've employed for years with over 400 customers (including over sixty Fortune 500 companies) and 22 million active users are legal.”

McFadden says that on the “flawed logic” of the publishers, “any software application that automatically displays information in a separate window, from ad-supported products like AOL Instant Messenger and Yahoo! Messenger, to standard applications like Microsoft Outlook and Norton Anti-Virus - would be illegal.”

McFadden added that one of the parties bringing the lawsuit has been one of Gator’s biggest customers and is responsible for sponsoring the majority of the pop-ups that appeared on its rivals’ web sites, including WallStreetJournal.com, WashingtonPost.com, USAToday.com.

According to WashingtonPost.com, WeightWatchers.com successfully sued a rival over Gator’s practices, without involving Gator itself. DietWatch.com was ordered by a court to stop its ads appearing when Gator users visited WeightWatchers.com and it was ordered to pay damages to its rival of $25,000.

We are processing your request. \n Thank you for your patience. An error occurred. This could be due to inactivity on the page - please try again.