Symantec Accused of Selling ‘Scareware’ in Consumer Fraud Suit in San Jose

Discussion in 'other security issues & news' started by tgell, Jan 10, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Page42

    Page42 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2007
    Posts:
    6,941
    Location:
    USA
    Indeed.

    Haha. I enjoyed this comment from The Windows Club article...
     
  2. guest

    guest Guest

    Maybe, but I don't recall being biased. I really try to be impartial/fair; and I'm a skeptic. lol
     
  3. Page42

    Page42 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2007
    Posts:
    6,941
    Location:
    USA
    I think I'll contact the plaintive's Chicago attorney and link him to this thread.
    I've been feeling kind of damaged ever since I ran that darn tool a few weeks ago. :cautious:
     
  4. Hungry Man

    Hungry Man Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2011
    Posts:
    9,146
    Yes, it's a "bug" that it can't detect system restore, any restore files, a very well known antivirus (that can be detected via action center), calls cookies threats, says PC performance is slow, and all the while advertises their product.

    Now, I get that cookies is one thing and "slow" is relative, legally they have no issues there despite it being absolutely pathetic.

    Releasing a product that somehow is so buggy that it can't detect any system restore/ restore files or a very well known antivirus is unacceptable and I don't buy for a second that it's a bug.

    I simply do not buy that it's somehow so buggy it can't do something as simple as checking the status in the action center. It doesn't even have to recognize the (very well known) AV ESET NOD32.

    This is just lame. I'm glad they've fixed it. Perhaps it all really was a complete disaster of a program. Frankly, it's either one of two situations:

    1) They let out a completely pathetic program, which broken or not utilizes scareware tactic marketing (though in one case it's legal and one case it isn't) and it's so absolutely broken it not only uses scareware tactics but also doesn't work making the scare tactics even scarrier. Frankly I don't trust the company or their programmers if this is the type of product that gets a full release.

    2) They did this on purpose. They scared up a few licenses.
     
  5. CloneRanger

    CloneRanger Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2006
    Posts:
    4,978
    Installed it after allowing LOTS of stuff to run & MANY outbounds/inbounds through my FW.

    n1.gif

    serv.gif

    n1aa.gif

    n1a.gif

    n1aaa.gif

    MORE
     
  6. CloneRanger

    CloneRanger Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2006
    Posts:
    4,978
    back.gif

    powM.gif

    At least it gave me the option & advice on how to clean up myself :) And i was Very surprised to see them list Disable Unneeded Services in both OS lists. I'm all for doing those mentioned, & more :thumb:

    DIY NortonLive PC Power Boost for Windows 7 or Vista - http://us.norton.com/support/kb/web...ve&docurl=20090512102646EN&nl_service=default

    DIY NortonLive PC Power Boost for Windows XP
    - http://us.norton.com/support/kb/web...lt&externallinks=true&docurl=20090511165107EN

    In didn't see Any deceptiveness in my test ? That "might" be due to them making ALL those errors though ? :D I did see Plenty of tabs/links to their paid services.

    Thank goodness i had SD enabled, so a reboot got rid of Everything !
     
  7. BrandiCandi

    BrandiCandi Guest

    I think we're all arriving in the same place now. Everyone else in this thread was basing their comments on facts, what we see the software to be actually doing. You were the one spinning it. I'm not sure what contacting Symantec would accomplish. Whether it can be replicated in the most recent version is irrelevant- it was done in the last version. Period.

    If I stole candy from a baby last month, then visited the same baby this month and gave him some candy, I haven't erased my immoral activity from the first vist. Doesn't matter what I do moving forward, I can't undo the wrong committed in the past.

    edit... even if I "accidentally" took the candy, I committed a wrongdoing.
     
  8. Hungry Man

    Hungry Man Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2011
    Posts:
    9,146
    The lawsuit is the contact. Let's wait and see how they defend themselves.
     
  9. safeguy

    safeguy Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2010
    Posts:
    1,797
    Excuse me. Incorrect or not the most suitable analogy used. If you insist on the 'acceptable' point of argument, at least in the case of Chrome:

    a) the words used are subjective ('faster' , 'better' ,etc),
    b) it does not state that 'no other browser is installed on the system"

    whereas in the case of Symantec:

    a) the words used are objective and purportedly misleading
    b) it states that 'XXX isn't on the system" even if it is

    And regarding about your last statement, let me just state this: Being once a student who undertook marketing module in my course (Business Administration), marketing isn't just all about "exaggerations and manipulations". I would not dispute that these are a few techniques that may be used to trigger the emotional/psychological reaction of targeted potential customers (in certain conditions) but bear in mind that there also needs to be a minimal state of professionalism (and integrity) since the goal is not just about $$$ but also to provide high value customer service and build customer loyalty, especially more so for a company that is as widely known as Symantec (despite how different people view it's reputation). Although there do exists marketers who achieve their ends through unethical means, do not confuse/degrade the entire whole concept of marketing with cheating or providing false information...I'd say that not all marketeers would appreciate that.
     
  10. Hungry Man

    Hungry Man Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2011
    Posts:
    9,146
    Their tool would not run properly on my machine. Instead it gave me directions on how to disable UAC so that it could work properly.
     
  11. id8

    id8 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2011
    Posts:
    26
    Location:
    .jp
    I haven't test the tool, but if this is true I would lose my word!
     
  12. Hungry Man

    Hungry Man Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2011
    Posts:
    9,146
    I'm on Windows 8 so it couldn't run properly. Instead I got an error and the screens that would normally come up gave little notices like "Coudln't access X" and it then said "See how to turn uAC off" or something around those words and provided a link, which I didn't bother clicking.
     
  13. zfactor

    zfactor Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Posts:
    6,102
    Location:
    on my zx10-r
    i can not say how many times customers i now deal with were told to download and use things like malwarebytes and others to fix issues norton could not...though i have also seen this with others like avast and iyogi support (they ARE HORRIBLE)
     
  14. acr1965

    acr1965 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2006
    Posts:
    4,995
    If this campaign were being done by a small company there probably would not be a suit because there would not be a large enough potential pool of money to get a decent damages return. On the other hand, just because Symantec is a large company, they have no rights greater than anyone else when it comes to misleading information. I would suspect it highly likely that Symantec decided their misleading ad campaign was worth the risk. They probably have a certain amount of money set aside to pay for this sort of suit and that was part of the overall strategy. If the probable profits are higher than the lawsuit costs then the misleading ad campaign is worth it. Remember this same company had the rootkit scare a few years back and that info did not seem to hurt their name brand much. There are probably Symantec loyalists who will purchase the product no matter what. All this information, and more, is used in deciding whether to go forward with an ad campaign like the one Symantec decided on.
     
  15. De Hollander

    De Hollander Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2005
    Posts:
    718
    Location:
    Windmills and cows
  16. windoftruth

    windoftruth Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2012
    Posts:
    1
    Location:
    UK
    Norton Live Services is a business which is completely built around this scareware tactic. They are involved in dubious activities like:

    1. They adjust their PC Checkup tool to give different paid offers presented to the user no matter how protected their computer is. Even counting browser cookies as potential viral threats. Nice.

    2. They put a paid 'download insurance' into your cart automatically when buying online - but you can download it again anyways. This is another form of scareware and usually considered an illegal fear technique used to scare web newbies. GoDaddy and other retailers used to do this before they were sued. Now they do it using endless button sizes and offers on the way out of their shopping cart.

    3. Their virus scan doesn't even do a full-system scan - although they imply it. From my tests, it only looks at a few start-up like folders.

    There is no doubt that this model of scareware business will not only continue to hurt Symantec's brand, but also get them sued.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.