[cditty]

And so it begins.
-----------------------------

A New York City-based Internet advertising company is suing Utah, alleging that the recently passed Spyware Control Act violates the U.S. and state constitutions.
The suit, filed late Monday in 3rd District Court by WhenU.com Inc., lists the state, Gov. Olene Walker and Attorney General Mark Shurtleff as defendants. It seeks to have the court prohibit the act from taking effect early next month.
The act, passed by the Legislature during the 2004 general session, is designed to cut down on spyware by making it illegal to create or install the software, which monitors Internet activity and sends that information elsewhere, usually without the user being aware of it or consenting to it. The law also curbs pop-up advertising on the Internet and calls for penalties of $10,000 per violation.

See more here http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/1%2C1249%2C595055767%2C00.html

[happypoon]

[loxly]

Maybe they will have to spend all their illgotten gold on legal fees... The lawyers will be loving that!!!

[Linda - 5starAffiliatePrograms]

"The suit claims the act, while intended to prohibit spyware from delivering advertisements to computer users, actually protects Web sites of online merchants "from lawful competition from software-based contextually relevant advertisements, regardless of whether the software invades user privacy."

Thank God someone is trying to protect online merchants and not just the consumer. They talk about how much income THEY would lose. Let's talk about how much income all other companies combined have lost to their antics.

[ecomcity]

Hope Utah tears them a new one. While their at it they should sue the merchant monitizers and the BHO enabling networks for each documented violation. Need to setup a site with Poon and Ms.B to file complaint forms direct to a Utah attorney firm. Come on ABWers I told you the consumers are seeking action on this one like the spammers and telemarketers. Hit your local media/news outlets with links and calls for action. Hit that FTC complaint link.

[Trust]

I like to thank them for bringing more attention to themselves, thanks for helping us spread the word

[Trust]

I think because of bringing this suit, more people will do a search and look at page 1

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=whenu

[Kellie aka Ms. B]

Poon that was my reaction also.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Need to setup a site with Poon and Ms.B to file complaint forms direct to a Utah attorney firm. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>the suit states, "private enforcers, motivated by the act's draconian penalties and the promise of attorneys' fees, may still seek to sue WhenU for allegedly violating the act."
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Looks like they have been reading your posts Mike.

&lt;~~~~~~ Makes a disclaimer statement.

Those comments are Mike's and not mine.

[ecomcity]

Poor old Avi Nader and Whenu getting shafted by the likes of Me and Charlie....

"But WhenU states that its advertising is "contextual marketing," meaning it advertises products and services to consumers who have a "demonstrated interest in those products and services."
"Because they are contextually relevant, WhenU's advertisements are useful to consumers and effective for advertisers," the suit states.
WhenU alleges the classifications among different kinds of Internet businesses created by the act are arbitrary and unrelated to the state's legitimate interest in protecting the privacy of Utahns. Its suit also says the scope of the law is unclear, making it "impossible for WhenU to know how these terms will be interpreted, and thus how the act will be enforced."

Even if WhenU made changes to comply with the act, the suit states, "private enforcers, motivated by the act's draconian penalties and the promise of attorneys' fees, may still seek to sue WhenU for allegedly violating the act."

The suit continues: "Thus, the act presents WhenU with the impossible choice of either foregoing constitutionally protected advertising and spending significant sums to comply with the act (thereby reducing the effectiveness of its business), without any guaranty that it will avoid liability in doing so, or else being subjected to millions of dollars of claims by private litigants."

Well thanks to Utah's foresight to muzzle the B-a-HO perps their ebiz greed driven plan, and those of their network pimps, is up for a hasher review then the useless CoC gave them. That austere group just cut legal holes in the commission bucket. I must resemble a draconian outsider enforcer.

[Drewbert]

"thereby reducing the effectiveness of its business"

Read: "limiting it's ability to screw other businesses out of their commissions".