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. TechSpot reports: 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.” Enigma said in a statement: “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.”
Eric Goldman, professor at Santa Clara University School of Law, told The Register in an email, “This case is like a wrecking ball for internet law.” He added: “The Ninth Circuit already damaged Section 230 by creating an exception to its coverage (for ‘anticompetitive animus’) that no one understands and has not benefited anyone. Then, when the Supreme Court denied the appeal, Justice Thomas wrote a gratuitous error-riddled statement about Section 230 that spurred many regulators to pursue their censorship agendas. Now, the Ninth Circuit has redefined the standards for what constitutes a statement of ‘fact’ as opposed to an opinion in a way that hurts businesses in the anti-threat software space and well beyond.”
“If each classification could similarly support weaponization in court by businesses unhappy with the classifications, then anti-threat software vendors will avoid the financial and legal risks by lowering their cybersecurity standards or exiting the industry,” said Goldman. “That puts all of us at greater risk.”
Source link
