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

From Bloomberg:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...eware-in-consumer-fraud-suit-in-san-jose.html

 

Lol, they better put just about every other security company in the industry in the courtroom as well then. Without seeing the actual complaint, I think I know where they're going with this. It's going to turn into a PEBCAK thing, you just watch, lol.

 

Their diagnostic tool actually does blatantly lie though. Even if you're running an antivirus and you're all setup it'll say you're vulnerable. It's absolutely scareware.

 

This diagnostic tool, does it also include the whole "we can see such and such "-type stuff too? You know the type, from the "online vulnerability" test sites. Or is it just ignoring all but its own products? If that's the case, then yeah, they need a spanking and the trust level goes down.

 

"Suit claims Symantec scares consumers on PC health" : http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/10/us-symantec-lawsuit-idUSTRE8092G320120110

 

There was a topic about it on Wilders a month ago. It completely ignored the other products and said the computer was vulnerable despite it having I believe Kaspersky (can't remember) and it said they absolutely needed their product or they'd be infected blah blah blah it was practically malware with an easy uninstaller lol

 

Well that's a good way for your rep to be flushed down the toilet. They certainly aren't breaking any new ground with a move like that, but you'd assume a reputable corporation like that would know better. I can't say I'd recommend them right this moment with this news.

 

I don't see this as scareware, Symantec marketing simply thinks that the level of protection offered by Symantec security packages is way beyond the level of protection offered by other security vendors - hence, the "you're vulnerable" being shown when no Symantec security package is installed/activated.

 

Umm..what? They're scaring you into buying their product. They aren't showcasing a side by side comparison here, they're acting as if you don't have protection period. That's wrong, no matter how much you try to spin it around, dress it in different clothing or call it a different name. Plain and simple.

 

Rofl, I simply see that as high confidence in their own products and a marketing strategy. We shouldn't ignore the fact that Symantec security products usually get top spots in pretty much every reputable comparative reviews/tests out there.

 

Lmao! Marketing strategy eh? Our ethics differ greatly, dear sir

 

Not much.

I would call this marketing strategy a "scare campaign" if it wasn't being done by Symantec but by a random "new" security vendor offering poor products that fail in reputable comparatives/tests.

Again, we shouldn't ignore the fact that Symantec security products usually get top spots in pretty much every reputable comparative reviews/tests out there.

 

How, pray tell, does product reliability make it okay for a vendor to lie to their customers, which is exactly what this is doing? When is it ever okay to lie to your customers? Ask Sony how that's working out for them...the Playstation is reliable. It's wrong what they are doing, and no excuses are going to work.

 

BTW, I'm not saying I like this.

But is it an acceptable marketing strategy? Yes, just like Chrome being added on a CCleaner installer with a box containing the message "Chrome is a faster, better, etc, browser" is an acceptable marketing strategy.

Why? Because both Symantec security products and Chrome are products approved by reputable reviews/tests.

So, although I don't like such marketing strategies of "high confidence", I see them as acceptable as long as the marketed products are indeed acceptable.

After all, this is what marketing is all about, exaggerations and manipulations, lol.

 

No, no no, the Chrome situation is far different from this. Chrome isn't saying "Use us or you'll get pwned". Symantec is ignoring competitor products on a machine and telling users they are at risk.

 

Please read the post again, I edited it. I think you didn't get the analogy. Chrome ad on CCleaner installer is saying that it is a better, faster, browser, which may not be the case depending on what one already has. It's marketing as usual.

They trust their products to be better and they think that what competitors products "lack" may put those products' users in risk. Hence, the message.

This is marketing dude.

 

I believe that Symantec will, ultimately, prevail in this case, since the word (and concept) of "scareware" is a recently coined, modern one. It is difficult, legally to establish a precise definition of what constitutes "scareware" with, presumably, very little legal precedent to go by.
What errors (supposedly) exist with any given PC, and what may, or may not be fixed is impossible to establish.

 

No, it isn't marketing, lol. Saying your product is better than someone else's is marketing, all day long. Showing comparisons/features/yada yada, is marketing. Saying I have no protection, when I do, simply because it's a different product from yours, and telling me I'm in danger because I don't have your product is not marketing. We'll go at this all night long and never agree, lol.

 

Of course they'll prevail. An international, multi-billion dollar corporation against what likely is a handful of people, is bound to go in their favor. be like Google and get the government after you, then the picture changes a bit.

 

You are exaggerating .

This is the tool that HM was talking about: http://us.norton.com/nortonlive/free-pc-checkup.jsp

Check what it really does. Why should that be classified as scareware?

 

Here's one rating where Symantec got 72.5% (the highest, Emisoft, got 95%)
I don't know where you went to school, but a 72.5% was a C where I went.
http://www.anti-malware-reviews.com/

Here's another where Symantec is right in the middle of the pack:
http://securitywatch.pcmag.com/secu...v-comparatives-rates-anti-malware-performance

Symantec didn't make the award list...
http://www.scmagazine.com/2011-sc-awards-us-finalists/section/1908/

And here Symantec is #11 on a list of the top 25:
~ Removed Link. Site Not Recommended By Wilders. ~

So that's four results from a random google search. Judging from this search I would say that Symantec is a decent company, it's a contender. But I wouldn't say it's top notch. If you can find some top notch ratings somewhere for Symantec, please provide a link.

edit: I added a fourth!

 

Stick to reputable and current ones, please.

Latest:

~ Removed Copyrighted Image as per TOS ~

Source and Review:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2392457,00.asp

Explanations:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2382604,00.asp:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2381924,00.asp

 

Here's the thread you alluded to, HM...
Can we really trust Norton PC Checkup Tool!?

I posted a number of screenies on the thread.
When I ran the tool, it found some very bogus results.

No protection was detected, no active security software. This on a system on which runs VIPRE AV and MBAM Pro real-time. The Norton tool also said I am running Windows Firewall (I'm running Online Armor, and it prompted me with one alert after another as the tool went thru its paces).

Imo, the scareware label fits as soon as the tool failed to recognize legitimate antivirus software present on a system and proceeded to issue multiple false warnings.

"Your PC is vulnerable.
Our scan found that your PC is not protected by Anti-Virus software."
and
"No active security software detected!"
and
"Virus protection: None Detected!
Protection Status: Not Protected!"

 

*Sigh* Is it really hard to understand a product ignoring others and saying you're vulnerable, is a bad thing? Read what HM said again..and it does not matter one iota what the tool does, it matters what it's telling users. That is the issue. I don't know much more clear I can get, lol. We disagree.

@Page42: Thank you for digging that up. Now do you get it, SirPeter? Lol.

 

VIPRE AV, MBAM Pro and Online Armor. All niche products with very small market share. Come on. Do you seriously expect an -at large- marketing tool to detect every concurrent product out there?