Microsoft Internet Explorer Cases

A Washington State Class Action Lawsuit has been filed against Microsoft for the way it installs its Internet Explorer browser. The Class Action Lawsuit was filed on behalf of All People who have purchased and now use Microsoft products that were pre-installed or purchased but never installed – such as XoftSpy. This lawsuit is over the long term affects of those who have installed this virus into their computers.

Washington State Class Action Lawsuit

Microsoft states that they will remove all viruses from their new releases. They promise to do this regularly. However, despite making such promises they have not done one hundred percent to prevent the continued distribution of the XoftSpy Virus.

As a direct result of this Microsoft knowingly installs and enables the XoftSpy Virus into millions of computers around the World every day – which means any claims that Microsoft has made in regards to removing the threat of a class action lawsuit are without merit.

The class action lawsuit is a Federal Class Action Lawsuit brought on behalf of all individuals who have purchased Microsoft internet explorer or any other version of internet explorer for that matter and are still alive today.

The complaint in this case seeks damages for the violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Essentially the plaintiff is asking for compensation for those consumers who have spent money on products but received nothing in return.

The District Court ordered Microsoft to install an anti-virus program called “XoftSpySE” (also known as Spamware SafeEyes) into all Windows computers.

Microsoft claims that XoftSpy is a required update to keep internet explorer “up-to-date.”

However, the District Court found that Microsoft failed to provide evidence that this was a requirement for any legitimate class action lawsuit. Further, the evidence cited by Microsoft was largely disputed by the plaintiff’s attorney.

He claimed that the anti-virus program was not a sufficient enough amount of software to be considered a requirement under the FDCPA.

The plaintiffs and their attorney filed a second lawsuit against Microsoft, claiming that the original Class Action Lawsuit was defective.

The second lawsuit was not successful. In this case, the plaintiff’s attorney was able to show that the original Class Action Lawsuit was improperly thrown out due to a technicality. Specifically, the court held that under the District of Columbia Law, the parties were not personal damages for which monetary damages could be awarded.

Consequently, in order to hold Microsoft financially responsible for their profits made off the internet explorer “bot,” the District of Columbia Court ruled that the software manufacturer could be held financially liable for the alleged damages and was therefore enjoined from collecting royalty fees for Internet Explorer from future customers.

As you can see from the above example, there is no clear answer to whether or not Microsoft can be held financially responsible for their internet explorer scams.

However, a win for the plaintiffs may open up the door to more lawsuits against Microsoft, as the District of Columbia Court has the power to enjoin the company for its alleged violation of the DC Law.

The plaintiffs in the original lawsuit may end up getting some damages for their loss; however, they will probably have to recoup those losses through future lawsuits against Microsoft. In the meantime, the plaintiffs in the second lawsuit are left licking their wounds, while Microsoft sits on their profits.