You have to read through the details carefully to understand exactly what happened in this case, but a judge has thrown out a lawsuit against Earthlink from a legitimate bank who claimed that Earthlink told its users the bank's website was a phishing site. The reason the case was thrown out was simply because Earthlink licensed the database from a third party, and therefore wasn't liable for its content. If I read that correctly, it would suggest the bank could still go after the company Earthlink licensed the data from. A quick search says that Earthlink got that data from Cyota, which (luckily for Earthlink) isn't Aluria -- the company Earthlink just acquired, or suddenly the lawsuit might be right back in Earthlink's lap. Still, like the question of whether or not it's legal to declare certain emails spam, should it be illegal to have a false positive on an anti-phishing tool?
If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
- Ex-FBI Agent, Trauma Surgeon Testify That Kelly Thomas' Death Was A Result Of Officers' Excessive Force
- Scumbag Revenge Porn Site Operator Arrested... But Many Of The Charges Are Very Problematic
- Legal Challenges To Spying Mount In UK
- Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood Thinks Google Is To Blame For Infringement On The Web
- Feds To FISC: Of Course We Don't Have To Share Our Full Legal Filings With Companies Suing Us Over NSA Transparency