Bonzi Class Action Suit Settled: No Foolin'! 376
An anonymous reader writes "According to this
article in the Toronto Star, a class
action suit against Bonzi Software has reached a settlement.
Bonzi will not pay damages but will be required to stop using fake user
interface (FUI) style error messages to trick users into clicking on their
banners. This is a big win for the community as it will help to improve the
Internet's ailing perceived user experience.
Most of you have seen Bonzi's banners, and probably most of you won't admit
to having been fooled by them at some point. Well, imagine how many novice computer
users were tricked into installing again, or paying for software they really did not need.
Congratulations and thanks to Lukins & Annis
for a job well done.
Interestingly, bonzi.com has been returning connection refused all day. This is usually one of the net's busiest sites."
wow, how is this good? (Score:3, Insightful)
Mike
Re:Oh bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
Big win? (Score:5, Insightful)
Bonzi will not pay damages but will be required to stop using fake user interface (FUI) style error messages to trick users into clicking on their banners. This is a big win for the community ...
A big win? What are you smoking? Bonzai duped countless users for years and completely got away with it. They didn't have to pay anything. A big win would be if they got slapped with such a huge fine that it would serve as a lesson to other companies contemplating the same sort of "business model".
GMD
Re:Oh bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't misunderstand me, I am a HUGE fan of the first amendment (and an ACLU member). But I believe that the Bonzi ads are fraud. Fraud is not protected, not should it be. They are trying to trick people into clicking, not entice people into clicking, a very important difference. I don't think that this adversely effects the 1st, even in cases of interface parody... (esp. since it is a settlement, not a decision).
Re:Oh bullshit (Score:2, Insightful)
So I guess there should be a different litmus test for online ads than for print ones?
People like that make me sick. (Score:4, Insightful)
They have no idea that the content of one's character is the most important thing in the world. Contrary to what the religions of mammon would have you believe, the ONLY truly holy thing there can ever be is an impeccable character. I'd much MUCH rather sleep in the gutter with a sparkling character than be a Banzi executive.
Bunch of animals, those Banzi creatures, and everyone like them... no, I take that back... most animals are sincere... humans have the corner on the liars market.
Not quite (Score:5, Insightful)
do it your damn self (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Need to filter out this address (Score:1, Insightful)
If someone suggested we block sites like linux.org or sourceforge.net because they encourage hackers, you'd probably have a tantrum.
Re:Need to filter out this address (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Big win? (Score:1, Insightful)
They settled out of court with the litigious idiot who sued them (look at the guys history, he's one of those "sue em all until I'm rich" lawyers), and gave him a pile of cash!
Hooray for freedom! What a great day for YRO!
Dumbasses... (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm just happy that I got my computer illiterate parents to use Mozilla. When the telco guy was installing DSL, he told them that they'd have to use IE and Outlook. I nearly kicked him out on his ass.
Why Didn't Microsoft Sue Years Ago? Part II (Score:5, Insightful)
This could have been ended years ago if Microsoft had dropped a Look & Feel lawsuit on them. After all, they defend even their ownership of the word "Windows".
Or was this some secret plan of MS's -- like licensing *nix from SCO when SCO doesn't own it -- to get people to upgrade to XP so these banner ads will appear obsolete? This is how MS protects their users, by changing the whole visual metaphor?
Re:My Dad... (Score:3, Insightful)
My favorite was him coming to me trying to get the pr0n, complete with dialer, off of the computer and giving the excuse of "I was just trying to see how easy it was to protect your [younger] sister." Tsk tsk tsk.
But then again my dad is far enough up in management (and has been) that he didn't see ANY humor in Office Space at all. Now THAT is sad.
god i miss the net (Score:3, Insightful)
back in those good old days when the ICQ numbers were less than one million, and the beautiful Netscape animated logo (early browser 2.x & 3.x) distracted you till a juicy HTML downloads. Not the stupid Bonzi shit we must live with, a non-tech friend of mine asked me to help him with his computer and I discovered this Bonzi crap, after hours of registry tweaking I managed to remove it, instead of providing a real valuable service their business model is to fuck their customers and ruin there machines and trick them into installing their crap Bonzi, its like selling pizza by stuffing it in your client throat.
Re:Oh bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
You are correct. This has nothing to do with the first amendment, nor do most issues where people cry out about it. The first amendment, with relation to freedom of speech, simply states that the GOVERNMENT cannot prevent free speech, except in the cases of public endangerment, fraud, or misrepresentation. Police may not be allowed to stop a 'peaceful protest,' but Joe Citizen can go down and put duct tape over their mouths.**
This case against Bonzi is purely fraud and misrepresentation. They are purposely deceiving potential "clients" in hopes of gaining something of monetary value.
-Ab.
** Putting duct tape over their mouth to shut them up does NOT infringe on their first amendment rights. Private citizens and entities retain the right to regulate speech. It does, however, break other laws, such as simple assault, unlawful detainment, and generally being a prick.
Re:Yum. (Score:1, Insightful)
It does. A properly configured IE (I'm only using IE as an example because that's what the users in question are, with very few exceptions, using) won't install anything on the user's computer without the user's direct permission. One of two things is happening: 1) The user is giving permission without knowing what he/she is doing; 2) The user's IE is set to give permission without asking the user. In either case, it's the user's problem. The default IE behavior may not be the safest, but if you're the type of person to accept the defaults without question then that's your problem.
To put it another way, the default behavior of my car is to not stop when approaching another car. I have to intervene to accomplish this. If you don't know how to operate the machine you're using, don't complain when something goes wrong.
Re:Overstated Impact (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree with what you said on a theoretical basis, because, of course, you are correct. But I think most small businesses(*), especially those who need to trick the consumer to buy the product, would not look for any legal precedent, let alone settlements, when choosing an advertising method. To those who are not like us, it's just another way to advertise a product -- they don't think of who it will annoy. Well, perhaps they DO consider who it will annoy. "Any advertising is good advertising" is a common idea, and that includes bad press.
I'll point out that none of this makes it "right," just that history has a funny way of repeating itself sometimes.
(*) Really, I don't think most big businesses would use advertising like that anyway
Bubba Asks Pros a Question (Score:3, Insightful)
Only fooled if you use the default colours (Score:2, Insightful)
I've never particularly liked the standard windows colour scheme, so one of the first things I do after installing is change it.
Consequently, a picture of a grey button looks very out of place on my desktop.