spyware vs truth in advertising laws
 

Most spyware is installed by declaring in a license agreement in very vague terms its intentions and hoping the user just accepts it without a second thought.

Most nations have truth in advertising laws forcing vendors to clearly detail what their product does.

If spyware is slipping into our computers on the sly does anybody else wonder if we might just see the local authorities put the squeeze on these advertisers. After all, their software is a product not just a medium.

:b:

The thing is, how many users download a P2P client due to having seen actual advertising for that client? I've never seen an ad for say Kazaa. I got it because Morpheus 1.3.3 died, and I got that because of what third parties (e.g. C/Net) were saying about M, not any adverts.

And I think a company's own website does not count as placed advertising, so would not come under ad regulations.

Unfortunately I don't think that will be a productive line of attack on their dodgy behaviour. I think it's gonna have to be a consumer rights vs. license agreement conditions battle. ("Yes we agreed to the terms by installing, but they were so vague and broad as to violate our unalterable statutory rights.")

And then you also have to deal with the whole net cliche of: where geographically (and jurisdictionally) is all this online stuff happening? Your home country? Sharman's? FastTrack's?