Last week the news broke news broke that 180Solutions has filed a lawsuit against Zone Labs over its anti-spyware product. The suit alleges that when ZoneAlarm -- the anti-spyware product, not the firewall -- tags such 180 applications as 180Search Assistant and Zango as exhibiting "dangerous behavior" and recommends their removal, this constitutes "false and misleading statements about 180's products (causing) thousands of 180's customers to remove or otherwise uninstall Zango and/or (180Search)." So 180 seeks an injunction and damages from Zone Labs for trade libel, tortious interference, unjust enrichment, and unfair and deceptive trade practices.

Now, this is going to strike anyone who knows anything about spyware as a little strange. After all, any anti-spyware product that fails to identify and offer to remove 180's applications would be absolutely worthless. While -- like fellow "adware" vendors Claria/Gator, WhenU, and Direct Revenue - 180Solutions has been trying to polish its public image and distance itself from its most nefarious distribution practices, the prevalence of 180Search and Zango is one of the main reasons that anti-spyware software is becoming a big business. So why pick on Zone Labs specifically, rather than the many other vendors who have also caused thousands of 180's victimized "customers" to uninstall these applications?

To judge from the complaint filed by their lawyers, it would appear 180's real problem with ZoneAlarm is that it doesn't phrase its warnings about 180's products as politely as some other anti-spyware products do. "ZoneAlarm identifies both Zango and 180Search Assistant as a potential 'threat to [the user's] security and/or privacy,' and it classifies both products as high risk," their lawsuit reads. "The 'high risk' classification is false and at odds with the industry norm and leading scanning applications, such as Symantec, which recognize that 180's products do not pose a privacy risk to users."

It's a sad fact that, as the big guys like Symantec and Microsoft have moved into the anti-spyware game, the trend is to be much more euphemistic about what you label as spyware, particularly when the spyware vendor claims to have gotten the user's consent to the installation through a EULA. While "potentially unwanted software" like 180's apps will still be tagged by the anti-spyware scan, the default setting now will often not be to remove it. Increasingly, anti-spyware vendors simply aren't calling a spade a spade, and that of course is a trend the adware crowd like 180Solutions wants to encourage.

So the real point of this lawsuit is not that ZoneAlarm is saying misleading things about 180, but that it's being too clear and accurate. The complaint focuses on the fact that the ZoneAlarm persists in warning its users that the suspect application's behavior means it could be monitoring them, "despite Zone Labs having been advised by 180 to the contrary." Along with not being willing to take 180's word for what it does with the information its programs could be collecting, Zone Labs also is accused, rightfully so, of assigning a high risk status to 180's apps and stating that it "is recommended that you delete this application immediately because it constitutes a privacy risk, and has no known usefulness."

Well, that sounds like a pretty accurate description of 180Search Assistant and Zango to me. Contrast it with the way 180 describes its business practices in the complaint: "Much like other innovative Internet content companies such as Google and Microsoft, 180 has helped develop an advertising-based business model that allows it to generate revenue from original content, while continuing to allow that content to be made freely available to users," it reads. And then this: "Similar to network television, 180 provides its users with unlimited free access to its entertainment content (game and software applications) in exchange for the user's agreement to view a limited number of advertisements per day from 180's sponsors."

Oh, please. Which company is it that's being misleading and deceptive? ZoneAlarm has every right to sound the alarm whenever it detects an application that's doing something that could be dangerous - that's why customers bought it. That its alerts result in removal of 180's programs is the proof that they aren't really the "consent-based applications" 180Solutions claims. If they were, after all, users would be unconcerned by even the most strident warnings of an anti-spyware scanner because they would presumably know what 180search Assistant or Zango is doing on their computers.

I don't know what will happen with this lawsuit or whether Zone Labs will feel compelled by it to tone down its descriptions of suspect applications. I hope not. But at least 180Solutions has done us all a favor by pointing out that there are really differences between anti-spyware products and giving us such a clear -- albeit 180 degree -- recommendation. Assuming we continue to have a choice between a ZoneAlarm that tells it like it is or a Symantec that soft peddles the risk suspect programs pose, I know which one I'll choose. How about you?

--------------------

Post your comments about this column below or write me directly at Foster@gripe2ed.com. To receive this column every week in my free e-mail newsletter, please go to my subscription page and follow the instructions to opt-in for the EdFoster mailing list.