Volume III

Issue : 16: September 22, 2005

• Attempt to Register "Linux" As A Trademark Fails
• ESA to Fight Michigan Law Limiting Sale of Violent Video Games
• Patients Take Their Complaints against Medical Professionals Online
• U.S. Appeals Court Adopts Likelihood-of-Marketability Test for Copyright in Useful Articles
• Google Click Fraud Suit Sent Back to State Court
• Alaska Enacts Anti Adware Bill
• Class Action Launched Against Adware Company
• B.C. Court Rules in Midst of Bangoura Decision
• Landmark Internet Libel Decision (Bangoura) Reversed by the Ontario Court of Appeal B.C. Court Follows Overturned Ontario Decision

Home > Volume III > Issue 16: September 22, 2005 > Alaska Enacts Anti Adware Bill

Alaska Enacts Anti Adware Bill

Alaska Governor, Frank Murkowski, has signed a new anti-adware bill. Senate Bill 140 has two main focuses: Internet predators and spyware. The bill addresses Internet predators by making it a crime to entice or solicit a child under the age of 16 and to distribute sexually explicit materials by computer to someone believed to be younger than 16 years of age. With respect to spyware, the bill makes it illegal for a person who is not the owner or authorized user of a computer to cause pop-up ads to appear when knowing that the pop-up is: (1) displayed in response to the user accessing a specific trade-mark or URL, and (2) purchased or acquired by a person other than the trade-mark owner or the owner’s licensee, authorized agent or authorized user. Under the legislation, it is also illegal to purchase advertising that violates these requirements if the purchaser receives notice of the violation from the trade-mark owner and does not stop the violation.

The bill contains a convoluted mechanism to limit its applicability to Alaska: pop-ups are allowed if the adware requests information about the user’s residence before displaying the pop-up and the user indicates a residence outside of Alaska. The software must also use a “reasonably reliable automated system” to determine the user’s likely geographic location according to current best practices, and may only display the pop-up if the system determines that it is unlikely that the user is located in Alaska. Finally, the program must not prompt, ask or otherwise encourage a user to indicate residence outside of Alaska.

Unlike some similar anti-adware and/or anti-spyware legislation, Bill 140 does not require that plaintiffs prove trade-mark infringement; instead, a defendant breaches the law merely by displaying pop-ups that are triggered by specific trade-marks or URLs. While this means the Alaska bill has significant scope, some commentators are questioning whether the law will stand up to a court challenge.

For a copy of Bill 140, visit:

http://www.shorl.com/bydyjopatodra

For additional information, visit:

http://www.shorl.com/byhatrakykyha