Oh come on, Panda isn't all that bad. The woman (mentioned in the thread) could have been using any security product on her system when she became infected. Nothing is bullet-proof, you require good tolerance and patience when using a system (especially when working online) to stay careful and watch what you are doing, and at the end of the day if you go around clicking on random links whilst trying to watch TV programmes online or start downloading and running programs without doing proper research, you'll become infected no matter what.That is the reason why I uninstalled Panda from my PC a year ago.
The problem is both the end-user described in this thread (unknowledgeable, not a clue on how security works - she is essentially click-bait vulnerable in the path of infection) but also Panda for the misleading advertising.I completely agree with you @Wave on this.
This news puts Panda in a bad light, like it totaly failed and isn't worth the money at all... It is a coincidence that she was using Panda now, and that she caught a malware that wasn't detected by Panda. She could also been using any other product that might have put her in the same situation. If they would have done more research and test which AV's are not able to detect that certain piece of malware, I'm 100% sure it's not only Panda that can't detect it. So in fact, if Panda needs to pay this amount of money back, she should ask the same to every vendor that isn't able to protect her from that piece of malware, not?
So if it is that simple to get money, does that mean that everone now can install malware on the machine and complain to the vendor to get money back, then after you get the money, make a clean windows install and do the same again with another product? That way we can get rich in no time... If we really could do it that way, I would start immediately to infect my computer now....
And further in this story, who is actually the bad company now: Panda that is like every company doing their best to still trying to walk across an ever-growing mountain of malware, or the repair shop that is scamming and asking her more money than needed?
I agree that Panda's advertisement that they offer '100% detection' might sound misleading, but come on, everybody knows that no single anti-malware protection product can achieve that. Plus, they clearly mention that that score is based on a test by AV-comparatives, of which every single person knows that this test is done with a certain amount of samples and not the full collection of every single malware file ever produced. Every AV vendor is making advertising with those nice numbers, so why shouldn't Panda do that too? So telling now that Panda is the worst product from now on, isn't fair at all. She benifits from the fact that she doens't know much about computers and still then there has never been literally said that Panda offered 100% protection to every threat ever made. In my opinion Panda isn't even required at all to pay her the money back. I don't see any reason why Panda should be considered guilty in this case.
In these situations there is no one individual/company who are in the wrong, but both parties.If Panda did say 100%, it serves them right. That'd be a false claim and they know it.
Don't get me wrong @Wave, if it were up to me, I would have awarded her with 15 slaps in the face for display of stupidity in public and an extra 10 for even approaching a court.The woman is in the wrong for being stupid and believing she would be bullet-proof for installing Panda Security, and the company is stupid for misleading advertising.
It's @WaveDon't get me wrong @Dave, if it were up to me, I would have awarded her with 15 slaps in the face for display of stupidity in public and an extra 10 for even approaching a court.
To my utter dismay, being stupid isn't illegal and Panda's claim didn't hold, so this time granny got lucky.
Yeah, that is just coincidental and the people making all these allegations don't have a clue about how things really work... They are the same people that think an AV should literally block 100% of malware and assume it is bad when it misses a sample. They are the same people who expect an AV to really use less than a MB of RAM and assume it's bad when it uses more than 1MB. List can go on.At some point i suspect that it could be some sort of blackmailing attempt like we see regularly. The story comes out on the net just when Panda releases its new major version. It's a bit strange, like it was well timed. We see this often. When Emsisoft releases a new version, you get some folks on the internet saying the product is bad and gives a lot of FP. If Norton releases a new version, the product is heavy as hell. If it's Kaspersky, it is Russian and can't be trusted. And it goes on like that.
The woman doesn't know what she is doing and thinks that Panda Security was meant to make her system literally malware-proof; she was social engineered by the malware removal service when she could have received free support on a forum like this one.Why would she be charged 160 bucks for removing a malware?