Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minute2Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errors3Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesIn April 2006, Washington’s attorney general announced that Sammamish-based SoftwareOnline.com Inc. had agreed to settle allegations over how it marketed InternetShield and Registry Cleaner. The state’s announcement described $190,000 in payments, including $40,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs; the settlement also required changes to the company’s sales practices and offered a time-limited refund process. The case concerned alleged deceptive advertising, pop-ups, uninstall problems and checkout practices—not a determination that the products were malware. (Washington Attorney General, April 10, 2006)
Who was involved, and what were the products?
The Washington State Attorney General’s Office brought the civil consumer-protection case against SoftwareOnline.com Inc. in King County Superior Court under Washington’s Consumer Protection Act. The company marketed InternetShield as an internet security and privacy program, and Registry Cleaner as software intended to clean registry problems said to contribute to crashes, slow performance and other computer issues. The state’s case addressed the company’s marketing and sales conduct as well as aspects of the software’s behavior; it was not a criminal conviction. (Washington Attorney General)
How the alleged free-scan sales funnel worked
The state said consumers encountered offers for a free computer scan in pop-ups or unsolicited email. After a user downloaded and ran the scan, the results allegedly showed a limited number of problems that could be addressed for free while warning of many more risks that required a paid version. Repeated messages then urged a purchase. In some reported cases, the warnings and pop-ups continued after a computer restart until the software was uninstalled or the user bought the product. These were allegations resolved by settlement, not a court finding that every user saw the same messages.
For InternetShield, the complaint gave a specific reason the state considered the results unreliable: it alleged that the scan could report a computer as vulnerable when it did not contain a particular list of more than 2,000 websites in Internet Explorer’s Restricted Zone, even if those sites were already blocked by another method, such as the Hosts file. In other words, the state challenged whether the scan reflected an individual computer’s actual protection, rather than establishing that the software had no function. (Complaint copy hosted by Scribd)
#1 Best Overall
Why the pop-ups and controls mattered
The state alleged that advertising and interface controls made it difficult for users to dismiss the sales messages. A button that appeared to close an advertisement could instead open another ad; clicking an “X” could produce more pop-ups. The complaint also alleged that the uninstall option did not reliably remove all software files. Taken together, these practices could keep a user inside the same pressure-to-purchase loop: warnings prompted a scan, scan results prompted an upgrade, and attempts to dismiss the advertising allegedly generated more of it.
That pattern resembles what later came to be called scareware and deceptive design: using alarming claims and interface choices to influence decisions. Those are useful modern descriptions of the alleged behavior, not terms to retroactively attribute to the 2006 settlement. The official case was framed as a Washington consumer-protection matter.
Rank #2
- Ideal for Gifting
- Ideal for a bookworm
- Compact for travelling
What the state alleged about checkout and recurring charges
The attorney general said the checkout process could add items or services unless a customer affirmatively declined them. The release identified a $9.95 backup disk, a $4.95 optional extended service plan, and a free year of updates that could result in an automatic credit-card charge at the end of the year unless the customer canceled. The settlement prohibited charging consumers for products or services without their explicit consent. (Washington Attorney General)
What the settlement changed
The stipulated settlement restricted the conduct at the heart of the state’s allegations. It barred the defendants from:
- Inducing software installation with false suggestions that a computer was at risk.
- Marketing InternetShield through a free scan.
- Using misleading advertising buttons or software that generated repeated pop-ups when users tried to close ads.
- Providing a nonfunctional uninstall option.
- Charging for products or services without explicit consumer consent.
The state also said affected consumers could request refunds, but the deadline in its April 2006 announcement was August 9, 2006. That historical claims process is not an open refund route today. (Washington Attorney General)
Why some accounts say $190,000 and others say $400,000
The figures describe different parts of the resolution and should not be collapsed into a claim that SoftwareOnline immediately paid $400,000. The attorney general’s contemporary announcement described $190,000 in payments to resolve the case, including $40,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs. A later Washington Attorney General annual report described the stipulated judgment as imposing $400,000 in civil penalties, with $250,000 suspended if the company complied with the order, in addition to restitution and fees. The available descriptions do not establish a more precise allocation than that distinction. (Washington Attorney General 2006 annual report)
Rank #4
What SoftwareOnline said
In contemporary coverage, SoftwareOnline said it had made more than a dozen marketing changes and had stopped offering an InternetShield trial. The company also maintained that the attorney general had not questioned the products’ efficacy or value. Those are the company’s statements, not an independent technical assessment. (Computerworld, April 13, 2006)
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.Why the case remains relevant
The case is an early state enforcement example of how software-based selling can blur the line between an advertisement and a security warning. Its significance lies not only in the payment figures but in the practices the settlement addressed: scans that allegedly overstated personal risk, ads that were difficult to dismiss, unreliable removal, and add-ons or later charges that consumers had to avoid. It illustrates the consumer-protection questions that arise when software controls both the warning and the route to a purchase, without proving that every security utility using a scan or pop-up is deceptive.
Quick Recap
Best Value
- It can be a gift option
- Comes with secure packaging
- Helpful in various ways
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
