| reply to TBusiness
Re: Horrible thought: Possibly the CFAA, but more than anything these ad injections can be seen as a malicious attack on both the users and the websites due to them replacing the website's ads with their own. Let us not even get into how their ads are using subscriber's limited bandwidth due to the company's 250 GB limit and how that can be seen as them forcing users to use much more bandwidth than they normally would in the hopes of causing them to breach said limit.
Basically, this has "bad idea" written all over it and may very well be seen as illegal because of how it's implemented and how it removes and replaces ads on websites. |
|
| They aren't replacing the ads, they're injecting over the website. Think pop-up or inline pop-up. |
|
|
|
| If you read the original blog post, they're both putting ad banners at the bottom of websites and replacing website ads with their own. What makes it worse is sometimes they replace some ads with a competitor's advertisement. |
|
