Microsoft steps in after LG monitors were found auto-installing apps with McAfee ads

[Alfonso Maruccia]

The big picture: McAfee was a trusted name in the antivirus software market during the MS-DOS days. Many computers came with a copy of the company's VirusScan freeware tool to fend off trojan horses and other virus threats. Today, McAfee is a name that's almost exclusively trusted in the advertising and B2B markets. End users would very much prefer to avoid McAfee products at this point, which is why they tend to get angry when someone tries to push the McAfee brand through bundled advertising pop-ups.

The controversial advertising partnership between LG and McAfee has apparently come to an end after Microsoft got involved in the matter.

Pavan Davuluri, executive vice president of Windows and Devices, recently confirmed that Redmond got in touch with LG, the company that started it all. LG has "agreed" to remove the McAfee pop-up from its Windows Store app, Davuluri said, which likely means that Microsoft forced the South Korean manufacturer to stop pushing McAfee-related advertising to customers who purchased a new gaming monitor.

The controversy began earlier this month, when users discovered that the "LG Monitor App Installer" app was displaying McAfee promotions. Windows installed the app after affected users connected their brand-new LG monitors, with no easy way to uninstall the tool without resorting to third-party applications or disabling the Microsoft Store itself.

– Pavan Davuluri (@pavandavuluri) July 22, 2026

According to Davuluri's post, Microsoft "connected" with LG before the latter agreed to remove the McAfee adware message from the LG Monitor App Installer app. Both companies apparently share a common goal of improving the Windows ecosystem and providing customers with the best possible software experience.

Per user complaints, the list of LG monitors reportedly found to automatically push the LG Monitor App Installer app onto users' PCs includes the following models: 34GX900A-B, 45GX950-B.AEU, 32GS95UE-B, 39GX950B, 27GP83B-B, 27GN800, 32GS95UE-B, and 27GN850-B.

Apps developed through Microsoft's Universal Windows Platform can be designed to install automatically when a user connects a specific device to a Windows machine. Put simply, Microsoft approved this practice for UWP app developers, and the LG monitor tool was simply working as designed.

The official UWP documentation even states that automatic installation can be a source of confusion because users do not receive any notification about the installation process.

Other companies known to take advantage of this auto-installation feature include Razer, Logitech, Asus, and Gigabyte.

Permalink to story:

Microsoft steps in after LG monitors were found auto-installing apps with McAfee ads

 

[yRaz]

No mention of the Spyware that is the LG app? The auto installing of the LG app is the bigger problem and the ads were just what made people put it under a microscope. It literally talks about the user needs to comply with wiretapping laws when using their products. It's not that it automatically installs the driver, it automatically downloads the app that does some very worrying things. It also doesn't tell you its being installed or ask for you to agree or disagree

 

[onebignerd]

OH please, Microsoft knew all along what was happening!!

 

[Hecate91]

Microslop isn't doing enough, they shouldn't allow third party software to update in the background through windows update without asking the user if they want adware, or in this case spyware from LG.

 

[axiomatic13]

As someone who had McAfee's Enterprise products forced upon my corporate laptop for more than 20 years I can say with the utmost confidence that their products are over bloated trash. The Endpoint Security product was basically swiss cheese it was so full of holes that even the most junior network engineer could exploit. Then there is the drive encryption product that would basically deteriorate the partition of the drive after about 150 boots. Pure unadulterated trash product. Forcing installs like LG did is the only way they can make a sale because anyone with any history of their product already knows its trash. (Yes, I have strong feelings about this software trash.)

 

[Endymio]

End users would very much prefer to avoid McAfee products at this point....

I'm unsure if you realize this or not, @Alfonso Maruccia, but journalists - even part-time tech journalists -- don't get to invent facts out of thin air, simply to build a story. McAfee remains the second-largest player in the consumer cybersecurity space.

 

[Tvvatus]

I'm unsure if you realize this or not, @Alfonso Maruccia, but journalists - even part-time tech journalists -- don't get to invent facts out of thin air, simply to build a story. McAfee remains the second-largest player in the consumer cybersecurity space.

Hate to burst your bubble @Endymio, but you are conflating market footprint with consumer preference. High presence gained through parasitic distribution isn't proof of user preference.
Adware is a very big 'player', that is not the same as popularity.
McAfee pays PC manufacturers for factory pre installs and bundled bloatware (Dell, HP, Lenovo, Samsung), I know that's hard to believe without more examples, wonder if anyone can help me find one more example of these McAfee adware installs for the very smart and clever Endymio. Could have sworn there was an article about it recently somewhere around here...

 

[NumberNine]

Much like Microsoft other initiatives, UWP is aimed at business, with users ultimately paying the trade-offs.

 

[Endymio]

Hate to burst your bubble @Endymio, but you are conflating market footprint with consumer preference. High presence gained through parasitic distribution isn't proof of user preference.

Oops! You just failed Accounting 101. As you note, McAfee doesn't garner revenue from pre-installed software -- they pay OEMs to pre-install it. But every penny from McAfee's second-place consumer revenue comes from consumers choosing to keep that software AND pay to renew the license.

I'm not a fan of McAfee myself, nor their business practices. But, unlike @Alfonso Maruccia, I'm not willing to fabricate false facts against them.

 

[wiyosaya]

I'm unsure if you realize this or not, @Alfonso Maruccia, but journalists - even part-time tech journalists -- don't get to invent facts out of thin air, simply to build a story. McAfee remains the second-largest player in the consumer cybersecurity space.

Stop being ridiculous just to make an invalid point. Do you have proof that what @Alfonso Maruccia says is false? I highly doubt you do.

I am sure no one wants ads just popping up on their PC from any company through an installation of adware that they knew nothing about because it was done without their knowledge.

If people want ads on their PC, they are likely to install such software willingly.

 

[Endymio]

Stop being ridiculous just to make an invalid point. Do you have proof that what @Alfonso Maruccia says is false? I highly doubt you do.

First, learn how both logic and journalism work: the one making the claim carries the burden of proof, not those disputing it.

Secondly, I gave my evidence: so many consumers are paying to use McAfee products that they're the second largest firm globally in the consumer cybersecurity sector. That alone is proof enough.

I am sure no one wants ads just popping up on their PC

Next time read the article. The claim wasn't about unwanted ads, but McAfee products in general.

 

[Endymio]

Today's market for security software in the consumer space is non-existent. Period.

McAfee made $2B last year selling to what you call a "nonexistent" space. Your claim is wrong. Period.

They are malware, adware, spyware, and crapware. Almost all of them.

You're expressing an opinion. Did you frame your post as an op-ed piece, or straight news? Do you know the difference? And even if your opinion here is correct, it doesn't support your original claim.

@Julio Franco has done an excellent job in the past finding op-ed contributors and, while I don't always agree with their opinions, I never quibble over their right to express them -- when they're clearly delineated as such. But when you fabricate a "news story" filled with fabricated facts and unsupported opinions, expect to be called out on it. You can do better.

From WSJ News Literacy: "Journalistic ethics require a strict structural and visual separation between opinion pieces and straight news reporting to maintain public trust, uphold factual neutrality, and prevent bias from leaking into objective fact-finding. This separation relies on clear labeling, separate staffing, and defined content formats"

 

[Linux Mint Xfce]

Gasp, really?

 

[Theinsanegamer]

First, learn how both logic and journalism work: the one making the claim carries the burden of proof, not those disputing it.

You should take your own advice. You are the one making the claim the author is wrong, it is on you to provide proof of your claim. You said Alfonso is wrong so.....where is the evidence?

Secondly, I gave my evidence: so many consumers are paying to use McAfee products that they're the second largest firm globally in the consumer cybersecurity sector. That alone is proof enough.

McAfee profits dont disprove consumer preference. Your forget that Mcafee also makes significant money through corporate purchases.

You claim Mcafee made $2 billion last year on selling this software, but.....oops, mcafee made 2.91 billion in 2021. And their software costs more today, thanks to inflation, then it did in 2021. So that would be a DECREASE in sales, indicating that Alfonso is correct, and consumers would indeed like to move away from this software. Also, Mcafee does not provide separate numbers for consumer VS enterprise, since they were bought out by a private company in 2021, so IDK where you are getting your $2 billion consumer revenue number from.

Would you like to try again?

 

[ScottSoapbox]

Yet another reason to get off Windows.

MS is doing a bang up job lately (even for them).

 

[Endymio]

You said Alfonso is wrong so.....where is the evidence? McAfee profits dont disprove consumer preference.

What is wrong with you people and logic? I gave the evidence: McAfee is #2 in the world, behind only Norton. Clearly the claim that consumers "very much wish to avoid" McAfee products is false.

You claim Mcafee made $2 billion last year on selling this software, but.....oops, mcafee made 2.91 billion in 2021. And their software costs more today, thanks to inflation, then it did in 2021. So that would be a DECREASE in sales, indicating that Alfonso is correct,

Another hard fail. McAfee was taken private in 2022 and the corporate division was sold off separately to Symphony. What remains is the consumer products division only. Revenue in their consumer division is up sharply. I didn't "forget" enterprise sales; they no longer exist.

Since you're struggling with math here, I'll help out. According to McAfee's 2021 10-K SEC filing, their enterprise business unit contributed 51% of total revenue, leaving $1.42B for the consumer division, a figure that's risen to nearly $2B today.

For now we'll ignore the logic fail of conflating a dip in sales with "all consumers are avoiding their products". #2 in the world still equates to a hundred million customers.

Would you like to try again?

Rather ironic, given your complete face-plant, eh?

 

[acrossthestars]

McAfee remains the second-largest player in the consumer cybersecurity space.

I concur with @Tvvatus, when he says,

you are conflating market footprint with consumer preference.

Windows has one of the biggest market shares of any operating system in the Western hemisphere, when it comes to retail and business users―beaten only by Android...and it is as popular as it purely because it is semi-FOSS. The IP belongs to Google, but it is functionally an open platform (for now, at least) and anyone can fork and install it on their device. Android provides options. That's a choice.

On the contrary, most commercial software is on Windows. All gaming used to be Windows-based, before Proton arrived. If you want to have a job, you need to know how to use Microsoft Office or have a good substitute that is interoperable with it. Market share does not indicate user interest, it simply indicates what the popular thing is. But consensus is not a synonym for "the truth".

In the same way that nobody desires to be stuck in airport terminal until their flight arrives, nobody chooses to use Windows. That's not a preference, that's a prison. Participation is not voluntary, if usage is mandatory.

 

[airbornex]

LG abused the feature, but Microsoft designed a system in which connecting a peripheral can silently install a difficult-to-remove Store app. The ad disappearing fixes the symptom, not the astonishingly bad trust model.

 

[Axeia]

Oops! You just failed Accounting 101. As you note, McAfee doesn't garner revenue from pre-installed software -- they pay OEMs to pre-install it. But every penny from McAfee's second-place consumer revenue comes from consumers choosing to keep that software AND pay to renew the license.

Choosing is a generous way to phrase it.
In my experience it's people who felt like they're obligated to pay for it as it came with the device so they think they need it. They didn't even think just getting rid of it is a choice.

Thankfully I've been free from playing tech support for quite a while now so it might have changed, but years ago uninstalling it was full of dark patterns and warnings and an insanely long lasting uninstall process as well (don't know if that is because it roots itself so deep or because they artificially make it take forever to discourage doing so).

When you present people with an actual choice and switch them over to windows defender (or NOD32 if they don't trust free products) all I've heard afterwards is many thanks and things like "My PC feels like new, it's so much faster".

MacAfee was and I imagine still is such an awful product, the only way they can exist is by being preinstalled because there can't be many people who'd of their own free will would install it.

My opinion on the #1 (Norton) isn't much better.

 

[Endymio]

In the same way that nobody desires to be stuck in airport terminal until their flight arrives, nobody chooses to use Windows. That's not a preference, that's a prison.

You don't get to redefine language to suit yourself. Out here in reality people choose Windows because it beats the alternative of an OS that doesn't run the software they need, or runs it very poorly.

Your argument is like claiming no traveler "chooses" to fly a commercial airline, they're merely "forced" into it, because cars, boats, and horse-drawn carriages just aren't fast enough. Or that I am "forced" to use a computer spreadsheet, because the calculations would otherwise take me weeks by hand. Want to try that one again?

Choosing is a generous way to phrase it.

I won't dispute your laundry list of indictments against McAfee (many of which I am in agreement) because they're not relevant. Whether their products are good, bad, or indifferent, and whether or not the average McAfee customer is sadly deluded over the benefits they're receiving -- the fact remains that every year 100 million people buy their products. They're not being "actively avoided by consumers"; they're actually increasing their customer base, albeit slightly.

 

[OortCloud]

MS happy to step in when somebody else is using SlopOS as an advertising billboard, but less keen when it's their own slop they are peddling.

 

[georges01]

A bit of history is in order here...

Long before 'subscription' was the business model 'antivirus' SW created/captured CRC's of installed executable's and then merely looked for changes.

Early versions of Windows were not exactly 'user friendly' when adding or changing hardware & the drivers for it. This evolved to the WHQL certified drivers and then including many drivers on the base install to 'automagically' finding & installing the drivers upon new hardware detection from Microsoft servers.

Sadly the feature has clearly been abused.

 

[acrossthestars]

Out here in reality people choose Windows because it beats the alternative of an OS that doesn't run the software they need, or runs it very poorly.

People choose Windows out of habit, not out of desire. It's a combination of "years of muscle memory" and "no choice".

Try to imagine a world where all software (commerical or otherwise) is available on Windows, Linux and macOS―in both form and feature set. I know it might throw your mind for a loop, imagining Apple software running natively on Linux or Windows and vice versa, because of how programmed people are to associate OS with software stack, but do try to be open-minded.

In that case, the customer is free to choose what works for them, because the platform ceases to be a relevant pain point. Now, instead of talking about which operating system people prefer, we're talking about more personal matters, like user interfaces and aesthetic options. In this situation, the "software as a conduit for platform ecosystem" argument falls, because every platform has all of the things. Only then can we say definitively that people chose Windows intentionally and deliberately―rather than our current economy, where your OS effectively holds your software hostage.

Your argument is like claiming no traveler "chooses" to fly a commercial airline, they're merely "forced" into it, because cars, boats, and horse-drawn carriages just aren't fast enough.

Everything comes back to choice. Right now, there really isn't any.

In the same way that airports and airplanes create a chokepoint in the flow of traffic, by being one of the few methods to provide both inter-state and inter-continental transportation, Windows has been positioned as one of the only ways to install and use the vast majority of the software ecosystem. People use what works, not what they want.

In an ideal world, like aforementioned, all software is available on all platforms and the user chooses what they want to use. Companies cannot strong arm their user base into going along with dumb and exploitative data mining systems unless they are getting something out of it, because their users are rational agents who can say "no" to corrosive business tactics without penalty―which should be the norm, by the way. The fact that it's even necessary to argue this point, regarding what operating systems people use and how they can freely opt out of a bad deal, is a scathing indictment of our current technological landscape.

Right now, if you rely on Windows to be stable and reliable, to get your work done, and one afternoon it decides to just stop working, because Microsoft found a new walk to milk you for even more profit that you didn't ask for and didn't consent to (because adding additional fees after-the-fact is not a transaction, it's extortion), you're sort of SOL. Either you submit to Microsoft's new flavor of "how are we holding our users captive this time?" or I guess you don't get paid.

 

[NumberNine]

Choosing is a generous way to phrase it.
In my experience it's people who felt like they're obligated to pay for it as it came with the device so they think they need it. They didn't even think just getting rid of it is a choice.

This is such an important point. People will believe this BS that pops up with their whole heart because they don't know any better and aren't aware how much they've already lost to get to this. Not everyone is like us.

 

[acrossthestars]

This is such an important point. People will believe this BS that pops up with their whole heart because they don't know any better and aren't aware how much they've already lost to get to this. Not everyone is like us.

This forum is comprised primarly of tech enthusiasts. Most people are not "like us".

By our very nature, we are not inclined to use something just because an authority figure said so. We question everything, we challenge everything. That is why this whole "LG monitors install malware in the background" is neither going unnoticed nor unacted upon. We don't look at a bad situation and simply throw our hands in the air saying "oh well, nothing I can do. Might as well just let it happen..." Instead, we demand better or we do it ourselves.