False advertising & TM fail as workarounds to 230 for software blocking

PC Drivers Headquarters, LP v. Malwarebytes Inc., 2019 WL 1061739, No. 18-cv-05409-EJD (N.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2019)PC Drivers alleged that Malwarebytes’ malware detection software wrongfully categorized PC Drivers’ “technical support” software as malware or a “Potentially Unwanted Program” (PUP), generating claims under the Lanham Act and for business disparagement, tortious interference with contractual relations, negligence and gross negligence, unfair competition, promissory estoppel, and declaratory relief. The court (after transfer from Texas where Malwarebytes already did well) granted Malwarebyte’s motion to dismiss based on § 230(c)(2)(B) of the CDA, but granted leave to amend.Malwarebytes offers a free version of its software and then upsells premium versions, promoting them by allegedly identifying and quarantining alleged PUP and malware and their official websites. In 2016, Malwarebytes categorized PC Drivers’ DRIVER…

Read more detail on Recent Advertising Law posts –

This entry was posted in Advertising Law and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply