PC Drivers Headquarters, LP v. Malwarebytes Inc.
371 F. Supp. 3d 652
N.D. Cal.2019Background
- PC Drivers (plaintiff) sells driver-update/system-optimizer software marketed via online ads and owns registered trademarks for its products.
- Malwarebytes (defendant) offers anti-malware software that classified PC Drivers’ products as Potentially Unwanted Programs (PUPs), flagged domains, and redirected users to Malwarebytes pages prompting removal or purchase of Malwarebytes products.
- PC Drivers alleges Malwarebytes’ PUP classifications, forum posts, and click-redirection harmed its business and raised claims under the Lanham Act, trademark dilution/infringement, business disparagement, tortious interference, negligence, unfair competition, promissory estoppel, and seeks declaratory relief.
- Malwarebytes moved to dismiss, asserting Section 230(c)(2)(B) CDA immunity for filtering/blocking actions and arguing multiple claims fail as a matter of law; the case was transferred to the Northern District of California.
- The court granted dismissal in large part: it held CDA immunity bars claims based on classification/filtering and dismissed several claims without leave to amend; allowed limited leave to amend claims based on alleged false forum statements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of CDA §230(c)(2)(B) immunity | Malwarebytes’ classification/redirection are not protected when used to "steal" clicks or make false statements | Malwarebytes is a provider/user of interactive computer service and filtering/blocking and redirection are "actions" enabling technical means to restrict access, so immune | CDA bars liability for classification as PUP and filtering/redirection; immunity applied at pleading stage; related claims dismissed |
| Liability for forum statements (false/disparaging) | Forum post calling Driver Support a "system optimizer" making false positive claims is actionable false statement | Forum characterization is opinion and/or protected by CDA for actions enabling filtering; immunity may not cover pure statements | Court: CDA does not clearly resolve alleged forum misstatements at pleading stage; claims based on those statements may proceed (limited leave to amend) |
| Lanham Act false advertising/trademark dilution | PC Drivers alleges false statements and dilution of Marks | Malwarebytes: statements are non-actionable opinion; Marks not sufficiently "famous" for dilution | Dilution claim dismissed (Marks not famous). Lanham §43(a) claim dismissed as to PUP classification/filtering (CDA); remaining Lanham claim(s) based on forum statements dismissed for failure to plead falsity but granted limited leave to amend |
| Trademark infringement (nominative use/confusion) | Malwarebytes’ use of PC Drivers’ domains/marks plus redirection causes consumer confusion and constitutes infringement | Use is nominative/fair use: identifying blocked domain/program is necessary and limited; screenshots show non-sponsorship | Infringement claim dismissed: complaint shows nominative use and fails to allege likelihood of consumer confusion |
| Negligence / Tortious interference / Other common-law claims | Malwarebytes’ conduct (click theft, blocking, false statements) breached duties and interfered with contracts | CDA bars claims based on filtering/classification; plaintiff fails to allege legal duty, falsity, or sufficient promise for estoppel | Tortious interference, negligence/gross negligence, unfair competition, promissory estoppel, TTLA amendment denied — dismissed (most without leave to amend) |
Key Cases Cited
- Zango, Inc. v. Kaspersky Lab, Inc., 568 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir.) (broad §230(c)(2)(B) immunity for providers of filtering/blocking software)
- Perfect 10, Inc. v. CCBill, LLC, 488 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir.) (§230 immunity applies to business torts like unfair competition and false advertising)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for pleading)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (courts accept well-pleaded facts but not legal conclusions on Rule 12(b)(6))
- New Kids on the Block v. News Am. Publ’g, Inc., 971 F.2d 302 (9th Cir.) (nominative fair use test for trademark)
- Coastal Abstract Serv., Inc. v. First Am. Title Ins. Co., 173 F.3d 725 (9th Cir.) (statements of opinion non-actionable under Lanham/defamation law)
- Surfvivor Media, Inc. v. Survivor Prods., 406 F.3d 625 (9th Cir.) (likelihood-of-confusion framework in trademark cases)