FindLaw | Legal News & Information

First Suits Filed Under Washington Spyware Law

Microsoft Corp. and Washington state have filed the first two lawsuits under a state statute that bars software providers from falsely telling consumers they need to download spyware-removal or other purported computer security programs.

"In this case, the defendants have exploited computer users' concern for the safety of their computers to sell their software products in a deceptive manner," Microsoft says in its complaint.

Both complaints, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, allege Secure Computer LLC violated the Washington Computer Spyware Act, the federal CAN-SPAM Act and other laws by promoting its software products, including Spyware Cleaner and Popup Padlock. The programs would purportedly block pop-up ads, remove spyware and protect against other online threats.

In a statement released shortly after the lawsuits were filed, Secure Computer said it was pulling its programs, including those at issue in the lawsuits, from the market. They will not be reintroduced until the company determines they perform "in accordance with appropriate industry standards," the statement said.

According to the complaints, Secure Computer convinced people, falsely, that their computers were infected with spyware or other harmful programs to induce them to download the company's products, which the complaints say were of "questionable effectiveness." Secure Computer used spam e-mails, pop-up ads and deceptive Internet links to advertise the programs, the complaints say.

Washington's complaint names as additional defendants Paul E. Burke, Secure Computer's president; Gary T. Preston, who allegedly owns and manages the company's Web sites; and three individuals who allegedly advertised the company's products: Zhijian Chen of Portland, Ore.; Seth Traub of Portsmouth, N.H.; and Manoj Kumar of Maharashtra, India.

Microsoft's complaint names only Secure Computer and a host of "John Doe" defendants. In addition to the Spyware Act and CAN-SPAM claims, Microsoft's suit alleges trademark infringement and false designation of origin under the Lanham Act.

According to the complaint, advertisements for Secure Computer's products use the marks MICROSOFT, INTERNET EXPLORER and other trademarks to trick people into believing the ads are associated in some way with Microsoft.