Re:Class action lawsuit filed against Lenovo over Superfish
by tedunangst on Monday May 11, 2015 @03:06PM
(#9527125)
Didn't Lenovo release an update that removed the program? The relevant question for the court is probably, how many hundreds of dollars did the average Lenovo customer spend on professional Superfish removal? And the answer is probably zero.
Re:Class action lawsuit filed against Lenovo over Superfish
by somedangedname on Monday May 11, 2015 @11:40PM
(#9529474)
Uninstalling Superfish doesn't remove the dodgy root certificate that it installed (which is the dangerous bit). As per Lenovo's guide[0] that still has to be done manually.
[0] http://support.lenovo.com/us/en/product_security/superfish_u...
Re:Class action lawsuit filed against Lenovo over Superfish
by belorn on Monday May 11, 2015 @05:13PM
(#9527890)
Having read several court cases, I can say I have never seen the court trying to answer the question about how much the average victim would spend on repairs. Its not a question easily answered or find evidence for, and the court do not have the ability to send out a survey.
What I do normally see is the court looking for guidelines regarding damages, and here the relevant question would be what a average person would have to pay in order to remove the malware and restore damages. A laywer could present rates of reputable repair shops has charge clients, and the defense lawyer could argue that the update helped reduce the time a professional would take.
Re:Class action lawsuit filed against Lenovo over Superfish
by tedunangst on Monday May 11, 2015 @05:48PM
(#9528075)
> the relevant question would be what a average person would have to pay in order to remove the malware and restore damages
And since the malware has already been removed at no cost, the actual, not just hypothetical, answer to that question is zero.
Re:Class action lawsuit filed against Lenovo over Superfish
by belorn on Tuesday May 12, 2015 @07:25AM
(#9530878)
The removal tool still need to be downloaded and run as per lenovo's website (http://news.lenovo.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=1931&v...). The malware still exist in laptops today and a professional would have to download the file, run it, and verify the removal of the infected malware to repair the machine.
There is the cost of removing the malware, and cleaning up any damages it caused. This is normally done by estimating how many hours a professional would spend on it, and the wages they would demand.
Second, is the for-profit claim of "TRESPASS TO CHATTELS". If someone goes and steal a car to run a taxi service, one would look at the ill-gotten gains as well as the potential economic loss the car owner might has sustained from not having access to the car. "borrowing" other peoples cars once the owner has parked it is not risk free, and the law recognize this beyond just looking at used up gasoline.