Movieland
Subscription-based movie download service | |
Available in | English |
---|---|
Owner | Digital Enterprises, Inc. |
URL | Movieland.com |
Commercial | Yes |
Registration | Required |
Launched | 2005 |
Current status | Offline |
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
The
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
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
Complaints by the FTC
On August 8, 2006, the FTC filed a complaint in United States District Court "to obtain preliminary and permanent
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.
The complaint also alleged that the defendants made it difficult or impossible for consumers to
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]
- Digital Enterprises, Inc. d/b/aMovieland.com
- Triumphant Videos, Inc. d/b/a Popcorn.net
- Pacificon International, Inc. d/b/a Vitalix
- Alchemy Communications, Inc.
- AccessMedia Networks, Inc.
- Innovative Networks, Inc.
- Film Web, Inc.
- Binary Source, Inc. d/b/a Moviepass.tv
- Mediacaster, Inc. d/b/a Mediacaster.net
- CS Hotline, Inc.
- Easton Herd, sole officer and director of Digital Enterprises and Triumphant Videos
- Andrew Garroni, an officer or director of Pacificon, Alchemy, Film Web, and Binary Source
Pre-trial stipulations
In November 2006, the defendants and the FTC signed
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
FTC settlement
The FTC complaint was scheduled to be tried in
Movieland settled with the FTC in September 2007.
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,
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
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
- Micro Bill Systems and Platte Media, a similar business that operated in the UK.
References
- ^ a b McMillan, Robert. "Movie service sued over spyware". InfoWorld. August 14, 2006. Archived from the original on May 15, 2008. Retrieved 2007-12-14.
- ^ a b c d e f g h "Complaint for Permanent Injunction and Other Equitable Relief (PDF, 25 pages)" (PDF). Federal Trade Commission. August 8, 2006. Retrieved 2006-12-29.
- ^ a b c d "FTC, Washington Attorney General Sue to Halt Unfair Movieland Downloads". Federal Trade Commission. August 15, 2006. Retrieved 2006-12-29.
- ^ Consumer Affairs. January 22, 2006. Archived from the originalon 2007-01-04. Retrieved 2007-01-15.
- ^ Berkman Center for Internet & Society. February 20, 2008. Retrieved 2008-10-16.
- ^ 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.[permanent dead link]
- ^ a b c Weisbaum, Herb (August 17, 2006). "Lawsuit holds a lesson about downloading". NBC News. Retrieved 2007-01-15.
- ^ a b c d "Stipulated Interim Agreement and Order (PDF, 14 pages)" (PDF). Federal Trade Commission. November 7, 2006. Retrieved 2008-10-16.
- ^ "Court Enters Stipulated Interim Agreements and Orders in Matter of Movieland.com". Federal Trade Commission. January 12, 2007. Retrieved 2007-01-15.
- ^ a b ""Movieland" Defendants Settle FTC Charges". Federal Trade Commission. September 13, 2007. Retrieved 2007-01-15.
- ^ "Show's over for Movieland; download service settles with FTC over adware". www.scmagazine.com. 2007-09-14. Retrieved 2022-07-21.
- ^ a b "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.
- ^ PC World. August 15, 2006. Archived from the originalon 2007-02-23. Retrieved 2007-01-15.
- ^ a b "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.
- ^ a b c "Attorney General McKenna Sues Movieland.com and Associates for Spyware". Washington State Office of the Attorney General. August 14, 2006. Retrieved 2007-01-15.
- ^ Leyden, John (August 16, 2006). "Movie download service faces spyware lawsuit". The Register. Retrieved 2007-01-15.
- ^ "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.
- ^ "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.