180solutions Drops Mislabeling Suit Against Zone Labs

The warning, which previously read “dangerous behavior,” now describes as “suspicious” the software’s attempt to set itself to run on startup and monitor mouse actions, keystrokes and visited websites, according to screenshots of ZoneAlarm identifying 180’s software. The reclassification is “still a ridiculous overstatement, but nevertheless an improvement,” a 180 spokesman told us. The monitoring warning also says the program “may try” to monitor activity; before it said the program “is” monitoring. Ultimately “the slight change in labeling” and “shrinking relevance and market share” of ZoneAlarm “has allowed us to move forward with a handful of business deals that the original labeling prevented,” the spokesman said, declining to elaborate.

Zone Labs shot back that ZoneAlarm’s analysis of 180’s software hadn’t changed “as a result of the suit or specifically with regards” to the 180 software. Specifically its log ranking of the Global Windows Hook and OSFirewall alert phrasing haven’t changed, the firm said.

When 180 complained about its classification, Zone Labs told the firm it was set to change the wording in its security alerts, including “dangerous” to “suspicious” and “is” to “may try,” John Slavitt, gen. counsel for Zone Labs’ parent, Check Point, told us. “We wanted to expand that category” to include more processes affected by 180’s software, and the move included a rethinking of the descriptors: “It’s a new product and we're trying to get the best feedback” from customers, he said, adding “we don’t take the lead from the companies” targeted in security alerts. “It just surprises me that they came out with” the dismissal announcement as if Zone Labs had settled or modified its classification of 180’s software, Slavitt said: “They knew that” the classification semantics were changing “and they said ’that’s not enough.'”

180 updated its “safe and secure search” (S3) technology (WID Dec 7 p10), which is used on Zango and Seekmo, after the suit was filed. The new version includes software 180 calls the Closed Loop System, intended to reduce unauthorized installations by 3rd parties through a “customer feedback loop.” It’s unlikely the updated software made much difference in ZoneAlarm’s analysis, Ari Schwartz, assoc. dir. of the Center for Democracy & Technology, told us. “They still had installs that were unfair and deceptive,” and in some cases, requests for user consent to install a program from a website took 5 min. to come up: “What good is notice by the time you're on a different website?” Regarding CLS, which requires users to report bad software behavior, Schwartz said: “We were hoping for a lot more.” The 180 spokesman said “none of the changes we made in S3 were related to monitoring mouse movements or keystrokes,” the 2 sticking points for the firm.

180 emphasized in its original filing that Zone Labs wasn’t a member of the Anti-Spyware Coalition (ASC), and the spokesman said: “Their labeling is completely out of touch with the industry accepted practices of the Anti-Spyware Coalition,” which explains why it’s not a member. Schwartz, whose group leads ASC, said the attempt to stigmatize Zone Labs was “the typical tactic of the adware companies… [to] put the antispyware companies against each other,” but that it wasn’t that relevant to the case. Slavitt said Zone Labs is “approached by many organizations to join” and “we're a little bit cautious or slow in jumping onto a particular direction… We don’t want to have a general consensus based on lobbying.”

The legal issues facing 180 might have grown since it filed suit against Zone Labs. CDT, which worked with 180 for 2 years to improve its installation and consent procedures through affiliates, recently filed a complaint with the FTC seeking financial redress for 180’s practices (WID Jan 24 p1). 180 also is fighting class action suits in Cal. and Ill. “Their situation has changed” since suing Zone Labs, Schwartz said: “We think it’s likely they would have lost this case.” The 180 spokesman said the CDT letter “has nothing to do with our dismissal of the case,” which occurred 3 days before CDT filed the complaint: “We waited until today [Mon.] to announce to make sure there was no correlation seen where one doesn’t exist.” Slavitt said regarding the lawsuits against 180 and other adware firms: “We'll get a body of case law probably from this,” although “before a lot of these things get decided, we may get some legislative direction” on issues like libel claims in antispyware classifications.