When this Lenovo Adware fiasco began, you knew that this was coming sooner or later. A lawsuit has been filed regarding Lenovo’s ill advised decision to put potentially dangerous…. Well, they admitted that it was dangerous…. Adware on their computers. Here’s the details:
A proposed class-action suit was filed late last week against Lenovo and Superfish, which charges both companies with “fraudulent” business practices and of making Lenovo PCs vulnerable to malware and malicious attacks by pre-loading the adware.
Plaintiff Jessica Bennett said her laptop was damaged as a result of Superfish, which was called “spyware” in court documents. She also accused Lenovo and Superfish of invading her privacy and making money by studying her Internet browsing habits.
The lawsuit was filed after Lenovo admitted to pre-loading Superfish on some consumer PCs. The laptops affected by Superfish include non-ThinkPad models such as G Series, U Series, Y Series, Z Series, S Series, Flex, Miix, Yoga and E Series.
Well, good on Ms. Bennett. I’m glad that someone slapped this company with a lawsuit and I hope not only that people join in on this class action, but that this is investigated by governments where these products are sold. Because behavior like this from Lenovo deserves to punished as harshly as possible.
Bell Goes To Court Over CRTC Ruling
Posted in Commentary with tags Bell, CRTC, Lawsuit on February 23, 2015 by itnerdYou might remember that I applauded the CRTC for actually doing something right for a change when they slapped Bell and Videotron for exempting their own apps, specifically mobile TV apps from data charges. Well, Bell is going to Federal Court to do something about that. Here’s what The Globe And Mail is reporting:
On Friday BCE-owned Bell Mobility Inc. filed an application with the Federal Court of Appeal seeking leave to appeal a Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission’s decision on Bell’s app, which lets customers stream live and on-demand TV programming on their mobile devices. (BCE owns 15 per cent of The Globe and Mail.)
And:
Bell said its mobile TV app – which attracted more than 1.5 million subscribers – is actually a broadcasting service and is therefore exempt from the provisions of the Telecom Act.
It said that when Bell Mobility provides its customers with access to other Internet-based video services it is simply acting as an Internet service provider and in that respect is governed by the Telecom Act.
In contrast, when it is operating Mobile TV, it said it is a broadcasting undertaking, noting, “Bell Mobility itself acquires, aggregates, packages and markets Bell Mobile TV content before retransmitting it to subscribers.”
The company also argued the CRTC had no evidence that the app caused harm to customers and unfairly placed the burden on Bell to prove the pricing model had no adverse impact on competitive services.
Interesting argument. But even though I am not a lawyer, I’m dubious that this will fly in court because of the fact that the CRTC specifically mentions that the TV app uses bandwidth that they are not charging for which gives their TV app an unfair advantage. They’re also going to court over this:
The company has also filed a request for the CRTC to dismiss a challenge launched by PIAC over its CraveTV video streaming service.
That relates to this story on CraveTV and Shomi potentially violating CRTC rules. Clearly Bell is feeling the heat on all sides.
Leave a comment »