Class action lawsuit filed against Lenovo over Superfish

Re:Class action lawsuit filed against Lenovo over Superfish by hurin on Monday May 11, 2015 @07:43PM (#9528597)

> What would the criminal charges be?

Not a lawyer but quoting from the document.

  COMPLAINT FOR:
  1) VIOLATION OF COMPUTER FRAUD AND ABUSE ACT (18 U.S.C. § 1030, et seq.);
  2) VIOLATION OF FEDERAL WIRETAP ACT (18 U.S.C. § 2510, et seq.);
  3) VIOLATION OF THE STORED COMMUNICATIONS ACT (18 U.S.C. § 2701, et seq.);
  4) VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA INVASION OF PRIVACY ACT, PENAL CODE §§ 631, 637.2;
  5) VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA BUS. & PROF. CODE § 17200, et seq.;
  6) TRESPASS TO CHATTELS;
  7) COMMON LAW FRAUD; and
  8) NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Class action lawsuit filed against Lenovo over Superfish by tedunangst on Monday May 11, 2015 @09:58PM (#9529131)

Thanks, though I'm a little suspicious when I see this:

  2) VIOLATION OF FEDERAL WIRETAP ACT (18 U.S.C. § 2510, et seq.);
  3) VIOLATION OF THE STORED COMMUNICATIONS ACT (18 U.S.C. § 2701, et seq.);

You'd think one or the other, no? (AFAIK Superfish didn't touch anything even remotely covered by SCA). This looks like classic "all of the torts" shotgun filing. Which makes sense for a civil case, but it's not much of a guide as to what criminal cases would be viable.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Class action lawsuit filed against Lenovo over Superfish by Lawtonfogle on Tuesday May 12, 2015 @01:02PM (#9533144)

>Which makes sense for a civil case, but it's not much of a guide as to what criminal cases would be viable.

But that is the guide book for criminal proceedings against individuals. The prosecutor dog piles on every single charge they can and then offers a scaled down plea bargain.

[ Parent | on HN ]