Malwarebytes faces lawsuit for classifying rival's anti-spyware program as a threat

[DragonSlayer101]

What just happened? Enigma Software Group has won a crucial case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, allowing it to proceed with its lawsuit against Malwarebytes for flagging its anti-spyware software as a 'potentially unwanted program.' The lawsuit alleges that Malwarebytes has engaged in anti-competitive conduct under the Lanham Act and tortious interference with Enigma's business.

The 2-1 split verdict from the Ninth Circuit came after Enigma appealed a 2017 California district court ruling that held cybersecurity firms can classify any software as harmful, even if they are from their competitors. However, the ruling was reversed by the Ninth Circuit in 2019, raising many questions about how this could affect anti-malware programs from correctly labeling harmful software masquerading as security apps.

While the Supreme Court did not take up the case following an appeal from Malwarebytes, the California district court once again dismissed Enigma's complaint in 2021, even after being told by the Ninth Circuit to reconsider the lawsuit. However, after another appeal from Enigma, the Ninth Circuit revived the case last week, and has now ruled that the company can proceed with its lawsuit.

The ruling has been lambasted by some legal experts, who believe it could hamper cybersecurity service providers from doing their job effectively. Talking to The Register, Eric Goldman, professor at Santa Clara University School of Law, claimed that the Ninth Circuit's decision was erroneous, as it failed to differentiate between facts and opinions properly.

According to him, in deciding in favor of Enigma, the Ninth Circuit failed to comprehend how the cybersecurity industry operates, and how security companies use the terms "malicious" and "threat." He also felt that thanks to the judgment, there will now be more disputes over such classifications in the future, making the job of cybersecurity companies tougher than ever before.

Goldman further argued that the Ninth Circuit's decision would mean anti-malware software vendors will now simply minimize their financial and legal risks by leaving out supposed anti-threat programs from their list of suspect apps even if they display dangerous behavior, which could pose a major threat to consumers. Some smaller players could also exit the industry altogether, which would further hurt consumers by reducing competition.

Goldman was also critical of the Supreme Court for denying Malwarebytes' appeal, and called out Justice Clarence Thomas in particular for writing what he called a "gratuitous error-riddled statement about Section 230 that spurred many regulators to pursue their censorship agendas."

Malwarebytes is yet to comment on the decision, but Enigma is celebrating the verdict, as expected. In a statement released following the ruling, the company said, "Malwarebytes (has) disparaged Enigma's products for commercial advantage by making misleading statements of fact. ... Trying to wrap them in a First Amendment flag does not make them any less offensive or any less actionable."

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/98976-malwarebytes-faces-lawsuit-classifying-rival-anti-spyware-program.html

 

[ChipBoundary]

Except SpyHunter is actual malware masquerading as legitimate software. This has been known for decades. This goes to show how clueless our legal system is. Anything other than Malwarebytes, Webroot, or Bitdefender is actual malware at worst or spyware at best. Unless you're a business, anything other than Windows built-in AV is a waste of money. The only reason to use those third party softwares is to allow for centralized controls and policies far beyond what Microsoft offers. For private home users, anything else is a waste of money.

 

[RandomWAN]

Except SpyHunter is actual malware masquerading as legitimate software. This has been know for decades. This goes to show how clueless our legal system is. Anything other than Malwarebytes, Webroot, or Bitdefender is actual malware at worst or spyware at best. Unless you're a business, anything other than Windows built-in AV is a waste of money. The only reason to use those third party softwares is to allow for centralized controls and policies far beyond what Microsoft offers. For private home users, anything else is a waste of money.

I'd argue Webroot is more like malware anymore. Trying to remove Secure Anywhere legitimately is already a big enough pain the in the backside. It'll claim it is uninstalled and yet there will still be remnants of it left behind and still operating.

 

[ChipBoundary]

I'd argue Webroot is more like malware anymore. Trying to remove Secure Anywhere legitimately is already a big enough pain the in the backside. It'll claim it is uninstalled and yet there will still be remnants of it left behind and still operating.

That's not a failure of design, that's intentional. There is malware out there that will disable or uninstall anti-malware software. It's a protection feature. There is an uninstall tool to properly remove it and all traces directly from Webroot. All proper third party anti-malware software has one of these.

 

[RandomWAN]

That's not a failure of design, that's intentional. There is malware out there that will disable or uninstall anti-malware software. It's a protection feature. There is an uninstall tool to properly remove it and all traces directly from Webroot. All proper third party anti-malware software has one of these.

I've had to manually remove it from a large number of endpoints when both the uninstall and uninstall tools failed. It would still leave it's extension embedded in browsers and the tray icon among other parts still installed an launching with startup. They were causing active interference and required extra measures to remove completely.

You can't call it "by design" when it evades your own removal tools. Something is clearly not operating by design at that point.

 

[davewill]

Any anti-malware program should be allowed to classify all other programs as threats, including their rivals. Users of the program can make up their own minds as to which anti-malware program they prefer.

 

[pmshah]

I would questions the bench warmers of Ninth Circuit.

There is a command line freeware provider named Mr. Nir Sofer. A substantial part of the collection are low level powerful and information gathering and displaying kind. I use them on a very regular basis. Now my Eset Internet Security scanner terms almost all of them as threats and offers to clean them. They would be when found on computers of uninformed novices but on mine they are excellent tools because I know exactly how they work and how I should use them. So I can't and certainly Mr. Sop[her wouldn't sue Eset for this analysis. It is what the end user has to act upon with an informed decision. That is the name of the game in cyber security.

 

[Ecurb]

I generally leave Microsoft Defender disabled as it has periodically removed software (e.g., epg123, kmspico) without warning. I’ll run Malwarebytes occasionally to see if anything looks suspicious, but I don’t leave it active. It is kind of like taking drugs to maintain one’s health. It might help for some people, but for the vast majority of people, it is better to improve one’s habits (eating, web browsing) than hoping a pill/program will protect one from one’s bad or uninformed habits.

 

[Hotlynx16]

Microsoft Defender says IOBIT products are 'potentially unwanted programs.'