Movieland

Last updated
Movieland
Movieland website screenshot.jpg
Movieland home page, showing various categories of content. A sidebar claims "No Spyware", "Virus Free", and "No Extra Charge"
Type of site
 Subscription-based movie download service
Available inEnglish
OwnerDigital Enterprises, Inc.
URL Movieland.com
CommercialYes
RegistrationRequired
Launched2005
Current statusOffline

Movieland, also known as Movieland.com, Moviepass.tv and Popcorn.net, was a subscription-based movie download service that has been the subject of thousands of complaints to the Federal Trade Commission, the Washington State Attorney General's Office, the Better Business Bureau, and other agencies by consumers who said they were held hostage by its repeated pop-up windows and demands for payment, triggered after a free 3-day trial period. Many said they had never even heard of Movieland until they saw their first pop-up. Movieland advertised that the service had "no spyware", and that no personal information would need to be filled out to begin the free trial. [1]

Contents

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed a complaint against Movieland and eleven other defendants in August 2006, charging them with having "engaged in a nationwide scheme to use deception and coercion to extract payments from consumers." The Attorney General of the state of Washington also filed a complaint, charging Movieland and several other defendants with violating that state's Computer Spyware Act and its Consumer Protection Act.

The files of the popup were found on Wayback Machine in August 2022.

Another version of the popup was found on Wayback Machine in January 2023, with the original embed page and parameters, but without some files (some missing files are saved in the older link above).

Overview

Movieland advertised its movie download service by using pop-up ads at other sites. The ads offered a three-day free trial, with access to members-only content including music, news, updated sports scores and adult movies. The ads said there were no forms to fill out, and no need to provide a credit card number or an e-mail address, making the trial appear anonymous. The site's homepage stated that it has "No Spyware", is "Virus Free", and "No Extra Charge". The site installed a program, MediaPipe, which was used to access the service. [1]

Early consumer complaints

Movieland.com began operations sometime in the fall of 2005 or earlier. [2] Consumer complaints began soon thereafter. Most consumers claimed they had never signed up for the free trial, never used the service, and never even heard of Movieland until they got their first pop-up demand for payment. Some said they found the software on their computers after downloading a screensaver or other free utility. The company denied that it installed its software by stealthy means. [3] [4]

Media coverage as early as January 2006 recounted consumer complaints and mentioned that several anti-spyware companies were buying Google advertisements boasting their product's ability to "Remove Movieland Now". [4] In a report updated February 20, 2008, the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School calls Movieland's MediaPipe component "badware" because "it does not fully disclose what it is installing, does not completely remove all components and 'obligations' during the uninstall process, and modifies other software without disclosure." [4] [5] Richard Stiennon of IT-Harvest referred to Movieland as a form of "Ransomware" due to its behaviour. [6] As of July 2008, the MediaPipe report is still cited by the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School. [5]

Complaints by the FTC

FTC Moviepass Figure1.jpg
FTC Moviepass Figure2.jpg
The expired trial and payment options screens as presented by the Moviepass software, as illustrated in the FTC's complaint. These pop-up windows blanked the entire screen and forced the user into continuing the process of purchasing the service, with no visible method of closing them.

On August 8, 2006, the FTC filed a complaint in United States District Court "to obtain preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, rescission of contracts, restitution, disgorgement and other equitable relief for Defendants' deceptive and unfair acts or practices in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act". [2]

The complaint alleged that the defendants were demanding payment to fix a problem that they themselves created, and were installing disruptive software that could not be removed through reasonable means. [3] According to the FTC complaint, Movieland repeatedly bombarded consumers with pop-up windows, accompanied by music that lasted nearly a minute. They demanded a minimum payment of $29.95 to end the recurring pop-up cycle, claiming that consumers had signed up for a three-day free trial and did not cancel the service before the trial period was over. [2]

The complaint charged that:

Installation of Defendants' download manager is merely a smoke screen concealing Defendants' true purpose: to install software and other files onto consumers' computers that enable Defendants to launch pop-up windows on consumers computers demanding payments to Defendants. These pop-up windows, which display both textual and audiovisual payment demands, significantly disrupt consumers' use of their computers. After Defendants cause these pop-up payment demands to display on a particular computer for the first time, they cause them to redisplay again and again with ever-increasing frequency." [2]

The pop-ups had a large dark background and took up much of the screen, blocking access to other windows, and did not contain close or minimize buttons; forcing the user to continue. The first pop-up showed the date and time "our content access software was installed on your system and your 3 day free trial began", the text "Click 'Continue' to purchase your license and stop these reminders", and a graphic reading "STOP THESE REMINDERS NOW" and "CLICK CONTINUE". The only option offered was the button labeled "Continue". [2]

Clicking "Continue" brought up the next pop-up, a 40-second audiovisual clip featuring a woman who introduced herself as "your personal customer service representative" and stated "Because you did not cancel during your trial period, you are now legally obligated to make your payment as per the terms and conditions you agreed to when you installed our content delivery software." As the clip neared its conclusion, a new dialog box entitled "PAYMENT OPTIONS" appeared. Choosing its "Close this window" option ended the pop-ups until the unvarying cycle began again. [2]

In addition, the complaint alleged that the defendants made numerous false statements in attempting to collect payments from consumers, claiming that the computer owner or someone else consented to receiving the pop-up payment demands until they paid, the owner of any computer that received the pop-ups was legally obligated to pay Movieland, and that the computer owner was obligated to satisfy any contract that any other person entered into while using the computer. [3] The only customer service telephone number provided was a 900 number. When consumers called it, a recorded greeting told them that they would incur a $34.95 charge if they did not hang up within three seconds. [2]

The complaint also alleged that the defendants made it difficult or impossible for consumers to uninstall the software. Those attempting to remove it through the Windows Control Panel "Add or Remove Programs" function were redirected to a web page telling them that they had to pay the $29.95 fee to stop the pop-ups. The only way many consumers could regain control of their computers was to pay the fee, or pay a computer technician to remove the software. [3]

Movieland's position

Movieland representatives said the downloads were not spyware and did not get on computers accidentally, insisting they were not "drive-by downloads". They said the FTC lawsuit was "improperly brought", and pointed out that at the time the complaint was filed a federal judge rejected the FTC's request for a temporary restraining order that would have immediately ended the cited billing practices. [7]

The terms of service at the Movieland web site warned that if users did not cancel or pay during the three-day period, pop-up billing reminders would begin and "will appear more frequently until you choose one of the payment options and pay for the license." [7]

Movieland said the pop-ups were "an anti-fraud mechanism" that cannot be received without consumers intentionally downloading the software through several intentional steps, each of which has a default setting of "cancel". The company also stated "there are no extrinsic programs (adware or otherwise) bundled with our software." The company disputed the FTC claim that the software was "very difficult to get rid of", and said it could be removed using the Windows Control Panel. [4]

Defendants

The following ten companies and two individuals were named as defendants in the FTC complaint: [2]

Pre-trial stipulations

In November 2006, the defendants and the FTC signed stipulations governing their pre-trial conduct. [8] Without admitting any wrongdoing, violation of the law, or involvement in the acts and practices alleged in the complaint, the defendants agreed to make clear and prominent disclosures prior to any software download or installation, to not download or install software without the user's explicit consent and without disclosing clearly and prominently in the site's terms of service the nature, frequency, and duration of any pop-up windows that may appear regarding any purported obligation for payment. The pop-ups also must not lock out access to the rest of the computer. [8]

They also agreed to fixed limits on how many pop-ups they can generate on a computer (maximum of 5 per day, 1 per hour), the requirement to provide a mute button for any sound content in the pop-ups and be able to close the windows, and provide a hyperlink with toll-free number and email utility, to request stopping the pop-ups under certain conditions. The defendants also promised to clearly label any single-click download or install buttons, and not pre-select these as the default. [8]

They are also required to not represent that consumers have any "legal" or "contractual" obligation to pay for the software unless the computer owner has provided personal identification and agreed to pay, and that failure to pay will result in collection proceedings or affect the computer owner's credit status unless the owner has provided personal identification such as a credit card and agreed to pay. Customer service agents may state that they "believe" the computer owner is responsible for paying for the download, and offer several purchase options including a one-time 30-day non-renewing license for $29.95, after which access to the service will terminate. [8]

FTC settlement

The FTC complaint was scheduled to be tried in United States District Court in January 2008, [9] but before trial, the defendants chose to settle out of court with both the FTC. [10]

Movieland settled with the FTC in September 2007. [10] Without admitting any wrongdoing or violation of the law, the defendants agreed to make permanent the terms of the pre-trial stipulations including limiting the number, frequency and duration of the billing pop-ups; and to pay the FTC $501,367 to reimburse consumers who paid for the program as a result of the repeated pop-up demands. [11] The defendants also agreed to stop offering anonymous free trials, have users certify at install time that they are at least 18 years of age, provide an install-time link to their terms of service or end user license agreement, not download software that reinstalls itself after a user has removed it, and to prominently post removal instructions at their web sites. [12]

The agreement also requires Herd and Garroni to notify the FTC of any change of name, address or employment status, and of any new business affiliations, for five years. [12]

Complaints by the state of Washington

On August 14, 2006, Rob McKenna, the Attorney General of the state of Washington charged Movieland, Digital Enterprises, Herd, and Garroni with violating the state's Computer Spyware Act and its Consumer Protection Act. [13]

The complaint, filed in King County Superior Court in Seattle, alleged misrepresentations and unlawful business acts and practices similar to those alleged in the FTC complaint, and further alleged violations of Washington state law. [14] [15]

The defendants were subject to fines of up to $100,000 per violation of the Spyware Act and $2,000 per violation of the Consumer Protection Act if found liable. They were also subject to paying restitution to affected consumers. [16]

Alleged violations of law

The alleged violations of Washington state law included [14] taking control of a user's computer in violation of the Spyware Act and the Consumer Protection Act (CPA), by remotely installing billing software that initiates and controls the pop-up cycle, misrepresenting the ability to uninstall software in violation of the same acts, by listing the software in Add/Remove Programs although the software cannot be uninstalled, unconscionable business practices in violation of the CPA, by the "aggressive and harassing" billing method used and the failure to disclose it, including use of a billing method "that forces payment by completely obstructing users' access to their computers", threats, harassment and intimidation in billing practices in violation of the CPA, by threatening collection proceedings and an adverse effect on users' credit records, while in fact defendants do not even know the consumer's name; and referring to consumers' "legal obligation" to pay, when in fact there is no legally binding contract, failure to disclose material facts in violation of the CPA, the "aggressive, relentless, threatening" form of the payment demands; the fact that the uninstallation option for the software will be disabled; and that the defendants "transmit software to the user's computer surreptitiously", and misrepresentations in violation of the CPA, including stating the software contains "no spyware" when in fact the software itself constitutes spyware by its behavior. [15]

In announcing the suit following a seven-month investigation, Washington Attorney General Rob McKenna rejected one possible defense. "The defendants' claim that users are legally obligated to pay for their service lacks merit because consumers did not provide knowing consent to the installation of the relentless pop-up demands", he said. "Furthermore, computer owners are not responsible to satisfy contracts that other people, including minors, entered into while using a computer." He also said that the defendants' threats of collection proceedings and adverse effects on users' credit ratings were empty, as the defendants had no way to personally identify computer users. [15]

Assistant Attorney General Paula Selis said the tactics forced some consumers to give in and pay between $20 and $100 for the service. She said, "We sued them because we were getting complaints from consumers who felt that they were being harassed and held over a barrel for payments that they didn't agree to make." [13] Selis said, "It was harassment, it was intimidation of the consumer. It was using a high-pressure tactic to make him or her pay for something they were not legally obligated to pay." [7]

Settlement

Movieland settled with Washington in April 2007 under terms [17] similar to the FTC settlement but specific to Washington consumers, agreeing to pay Washington $50,000 as consumer reimbursement and to prominently state all important contract terms, including the cost of the subscription service, in advertisements. [18]

See also

Related Research Articles

Adware, often called advertising-supported software by its developers, is software that generates revenue for its developer by automatically generating online advertisements in the user interface of the software or on a screen presented to the user during the installation process. The software may generate two types of revenue: one is for the display of the advertisement and another on a "pay-per-click" basis, if the user clicks on the advertisement. Some advertisements also act as spyware, collecting and reporting data about the user, to be sold or used for targeted advertising or user profiling. The software may implement advertisements in a variety of ways, including a static box display, a banner display, a full screen, a video, a pop-up ad or in some other form. All forms of advertising carry health, ethical, privacy and security risks for users.

Kazaa Media Desktop. was a peer-to-peer file sharing application using the FastTrack protocol licensed by Joltid Ltd. and operated as Kazaa by Sharman Networks. Kazaa was subsequently under license as a legal music subscription service by Atrinsic, Inc., which lasted until August 2012.

Shareware is a type of proprietary software that is initially shared by the owner for trial use at little or no cost. Often the software has limited functionality or incomplete documentation until the user sends payment to the software developer. Shareware is often offered as a download from a website. Shareware differs from freeware, which is fully-featured software distributed at no cost to the user but without source code being made available; and free and open-source software, in which the source code is freely available for anyone to inspect and alter.

Spyware is any software with malicious behavior that aims to gather information about a person or organization and send it to another entity in a way that harms the user by violating their privacy, endangering their device's security, or other means. This behavior may be present in malware and in legitimate software. Websites may engage in spyware behaviors like web tracking. Hardware devices may also be affected.

Claria Corporation was a software company based in Redwood City, California that invented “Behavioral Marketing”, a new form of online advertising. It was founded in 1998 by Denis Coleman, Stanford MBA Sasha Zorovic, and engineer Mark Pennell, based on work Zorovic had done at Stanford. In March 1999 Jeff McFadden was hired as CEO and Zorovic was effectively forced out.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">BonziBuddy</span> Former freeware desktop assistant

BonziBuddy was a freeware desktop virtual assistant created by Joe and Jay Bonzi. Upon a user's choice, it would share jokes and facts, manage downloads, sing songs, and talk, among other functions, as it used Microsoft Agent.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Scareware</span> Malware designed to elicit fear, shock, or anxiety

Scareware is a form of malware which uses social engineering to cause shock, anxiety, or the perception of a threat in order to manipulate users into buying unwanted software. Scareware is part of a class of malicious software that includes rogue security software, ransomware and other scam software that tricks users into believing their computer is infected with a virus, then suggests that they download and pay for fake antivirus software to remove it. Usually the virus is fictional and the software is non-functional or malware itself. According to the Anti-Phishing Working Group, the number of scareware packages in circulation rose from 2,850 to 9,287 in the second half of 2008. In the first half of 2009, the APWG identified a 585% increase in scareware programs.

Direct Revenue was a New York City company which distributed software that displays pop-up advertising on web browsers. It was founded in 2002 and funded by Insight Venture Partners, known for creating adware programs. Direct Revenue included Soho Digital and Soho Digital International. Its competitors included Claria, When-U, Ask.com and products created by eXact Advertising. The company's major clients included Priceline, Travelocity, American Express, and Ford Motors. Direct Revenue's largest distributors were Advertising.com and 247 Media. In October 2007, Direct Revenue closed its doors.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">BlueHippo Funding</span>

BlueHippo Funding, LLC was an installment credit company operating in the USA founded by Joseph Rensin that claimed to offer personal computers, flat-screen televisions and other high-tech items for sale to customers with poor credit. In an article published November 25, 2009 titled BlueHippo files for bankruptcy: Company blames its bank; was accused of violating settlement with FTC, Eileen Ambrose reported that the company "was forced to file for protection under Chapter 11." On Wednesday December 9, 2009, the company filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy after having its funds frozen by their payment processor. A petition to a Delaware bankruptcy judge to release the funds was denied. The company's advertised toll-free phone number and website are no longer functioning.

A registry cleaner is a class of utility software designed for the Microsoft Windows operating system, whose purpose is to remove redundant items from the Windows Registry.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">WinFixer</span> Rogue security software

WinFixer was a family of scareware rogue security programs developed by Winsoftware which claimed to repair computer system problems on Microsoft Windows computers if a user purchased the full version of the software. The software was mainly installed without the user's consent. McAfee claimed that "the primary function of the free version appears to be to alarm the user into paying for registration, at least partially based on false or erroneous detections." The program prompted the user to purchase a paid copy of the program.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sony BMG copy protection rootkit scandal</span> Sony BMGs implementation of copy protection measures

In 2005 it was revealed that the implementation of copy protection measures on about 22 million CDs distributed by Sony BMG installed one of two pieces of software that provided a form of digital rights management (DRM) by modifying the operating system to interfere with CD copying. Neither program could easily be uninstalled, and they created vulnerabilities that were exploited by unrelated malware. One of the programs would install and "phone home" with reports on the user's private listening habits, even if the user refused its end-user license agreement (EULA), while the other was not mentioned in the EULA at all. Both programs contained code from several pieces of copylefted free software in an apparent infringement of copyright, and configured the operating system to hide the software's existence, leading to both programs being classified as rootkits.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Zango (company)</span>

Zango,, formerly ePIPO, 180solutions and Hotbar, was a software company that provided users access to its partners' videos, games, tools and utilities in exchange for viewing targeted advertising placed on their computers. Zango software is listed as adware by Symantec, and is also labeled as a potentially unwanted program by McAfee. Zango was co-founded by two brothers: Keith Smith, who served as the CEO; and Ken Smith, who served as the CTO.

Google Pack was a collection of software tools offered by Google to download in a single archive. It was announced at the 2006 Consumer Electronics Show, on January 6. Google Pack was only available for Windows XP, Windows Vista, and Windows 7.

Rogue security software is a form of malicious software and internet fraud that misleads users into believing there is a virus on their computer and aims to convince them to pay for a fake malware removal tool that actually installs malware on their computer. It is a form of scareware that manipulates users through fear, and a form of ransomware. Rogue security software has been a serious security threat in desktop computing since 2008. An early example that gained infamy was SpySheriff and its clones, such as Nava Shield.

Micro Bill Systems, also known as MicroBillSys, MBS and Platte Media, is an online collection service with offices in Leeds, England, considered to be malware. The company states that it is a professional billing company offering "software management solutions that can aid your business in reducing uncollectable payments." The company's best-known clients are online gambling and pornography sites offering three-day free trials of their subscription-based services. If users do not cancel during the trial period, the MBS software begins a repeating cycle of full-screen pop-up windows warning users that their account is overdue and demanding payment.

MS Antivirus is a scareware rogue anti-virus which purports to remove virus infections found on a computer running Microsoft Windows. It attempts to scam the user into purchasing a "full version" of the software. The company and the individuals behind Bakasoftware operated under other different 'company' names, including Innovagest2000, Innovative Marketing Ukraine, Pandora Software, LocusSoftware, etc.

In the middle of 2009 the Federal Trade Commission filed a complaint against Sears Holdings Management Corporation (SHMC) for unfair or deceptive acts or practices affecting commerce. SHMC operates the sears.com and kmart.com retail websites for Sears Holdings Corporation. As part of a marketing effort, some users of sears.com and kmart.com were invited to download an application developed for SHMC that ran in the background on users' computers collecting information on nearly all internet activity. The tracking aspects of the program were only disclosed in legalese in the middle of the End User License Agreement. The FTC found this was insufficient disclosure given consumers expectations and the detailed information being collected. On September 9, 2009 the FTC approved a consent decree with SHMC requiring full disclosure of its activities and destruction of previously obtained information.

<i>1-800 Contacts, Inc. v. WhenU.com, Inc.</i> American legal case

1-800 CONTACTS v. WhenU.com was a legal dispute beginning in 2002 over pop-up advertisements. It was brought by 1-800 Contacts, an online distributor of various brands of contact lenses against WhenU SaveNow, a maker of advertising software. The suit also named Vision Direct, one of WhenU advertising customers, as a co-defendant. 1-800 CONTACTS alleged that the advertisements provided by WhenU, which advertised competitors of 1-800 CONTACTS when people viewed the company's web site, were "inherently deceptive" and that one of the advertisements "misleads users into falsely believing the pop-up advertisements supplied by WhenU.com are in actuality advertisements authorized by and originating with the underlying Web site".

References

  1. 1 2 McMillan, Robert. "Movie service sued over spyware". InfoWorld . August 14, 2006. Archived from the original on May 15, 2008. Retrieved 2007-12-14.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 "Complaint for Permanent Injunction and Other Equitable Relief (PDF, 25 pages)" (PDF). Federal Trade Commission. August 8, 2006. Retrieved 2006-12-29.
  3. 1 2 3 4 "FTC, Washington Attorney General Sue to Halt Unfair Movieland Downloads". Federal Trade Commission. August 15, 2006. Retrieved 2006-12-29.
  4. 1 2 3 4 "MovieLand Denies It Pipes Spyware Onto Users' Computers". Consumer Affairs. January 22, 2006. Archived from the original on 2007-01-04. Retrieved 2007-01-15.
  5. 1 2 "MediaPipe". Berkman Center for Internet & Society. February 20, 2008. Retrieved 2008-10-16.
  6. ↑ Keizer, Gregg (August 16, 2006). "FTC, AG Blame 'Extortionware' For Pop-Up Hell". TechWeb. Archived from the original on 2011-06-12. Retrieved 2008-10-16.
  7. 1 2 3 Weisbaum, Herb (August 17, 2006). "Lawsuit holds a lesson about downloading". NBC News. Archived from the original on March 5, 2016. Retrieved 2007-01-15.
  8. 1 2 3 4 "Stipulated Interim Agreement and Order (PDF, 14 pages)" (PDF). Federal Trade Commission. November 7, 2006. Retrieved 2008-10-16.
  9. ↑ "Court Enters Stipulated Interim Agreements and Orders in Matter of Movieland.com". Federal Trade Commission. January 12, 2007. Retrieved 2007-01-15.
  10. 1 2 ""Movieland" Defendants Settle FTC Charges". Federal Trade Commission. September 13, 2007. Retrieved 2007-01-15.
  11. ↑ "Show's over for Movieland; download service settles with FTC over adware". www.scmagazine.com. 2007-09-14. Retrieved 2022-07-21.
  12. 1 2 "Settlement Agreement and Stipulated Final Order for Permanent Injunction and Monetary Relief (PDF, 30 pages)" (PDF). Federal Trade Commission. September 13, 2007. Retrieved 2008-10-16.
  13. 1 2 "Movie Download Service Sued Over Spyware". PC World . August 15, 2006. Archived from the original on 2007-02-23. Retrieved 2007-01-15.
  14. 1 2 "Complaint for Injunctive and Additional Relief Under the Unfair Business Practices--Consumer Protection Act and the Computer Spyware Act (PDF, 21 pages)" (PDF). Washington State Office of the Attorney General. August 14, 2006. Archived from the original (PDF) on July 3, 2009. Retrieved 2007-01-15.
  15. 1 2 3 "Attorney General McKenna Sues Movieland.com and Associates for Spyware". Washington State Office of the Attorney General. August 14, 2006. Retrieved 2007-01-15.
  16. ↑ Leyden, John (August 16, 2006). "Movie download service faces spyware lawsuit". The Register . Retrieved 2007-01-15.
  17. ↑ "Attorney General McKenna Settles with Movieland.com and Associates Concerning Pop-Up Payment Demands". Washington State Office of the Attorney General. April 19, 2007. Retrieved 2008-10-16.
  18. ↑ "Stipulated Agreement and Order" (PDF). Washington State Office of the Attorney General. April 19, 2007. Archived from the original (PDF) on July 3, 2009. Retrieved 2008-10-16.

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.