Class action lawsuit filed against Lenovo over Superfish

Re:Class action lawsuit filed against Lenovo over Superfish by rhino369 on Monday May 11, 2015 @01:47PM (#9526501)

Punitive damages would occur after any trial victory. This is just the very first step, essentially a legal accusation.

As to why the government hasn't tried to indict for criminal charges, there could be many reasons. The case might not be good. They might be waiting. They may think it's small fry stuff.

The doj doesn't go after everyone.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Class action lawsuit filed against Lenovo over Superfish by pbhjpbhj on Monday May 11, 2015 @03:11PM (#9527158)

So who is responsible in the DoJ for deciding that it's OK to let company directors do arms length crimes and they're going to look the other way.

Is there any question as to what Lenovo actually did, are they denying they exceeded their authorisation in accessing computers and MitM-ing things like bank transactions? If the facts aren't in dispute there then surely the only thing the court would need to do is work out how long the directors who authorised/oversaw [or negligently didn't oversee] this are going to be put in prison for.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Class action lawsuit filed against Lenovo over Superfish by tedunangst on Monday May 11, 2015 @03:17PM (#9527201)

Well, the CFAA has a handy little "choose your own adventure" like section listing the various naughty activities, where you could be guilty of a.2.B or a.7.A, etc. Which combo do you think Lenovo is guilty of?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Class action lawsuit filed against Lenovo over Superfish by btdollar on Monday May 11, 2015 @08:31PM (#9528792)

What a self-serving law. All it deals with is atomic data and financial institutions. How in the hell does this ever get applied to people downloading too many webpages?

[ Parent | on HN ]