- Apr 25, 2013
- 5,356
Antivirus Maker Forced to Pay Damages to Infected User
- Thread starter Jack
- Start date
- Jun 24, 2016
- 2,485
Why would she be charged 160 bucks for removing a malware?
- Aug 31, 2014
- 655
In the OP it says this: also reduced the PC repair bills after they discovered that the repair shop had performed and charged for extra operations that weren't required.
Basically the shop ripped her off
- Aug 2, 2015
- 4,286
roflmao, Panda needs meds
- Mar 15, 2011
- 13,070
That incident should be a prime lesson where AV developers must be responsible; avoid too much advertisement and instead make a clear notice about the protection ratings they claim.
However in such twist of story, you cannot blame the old lady being tricked to paid high amount on removal of malware, since she only have basic knowledge of security only.
However in such twist of story, you cannot blame the old lady being tricked to paid high amount on removal of malware, since she only have basic knowledge of security only.
Last edited:
This is really unfair on Panda Security - it's not a secret that there is no "best" Anti-Virus product out there and nothing is bullet-proof no matter what... Anti-Virus products present the end-user with a Terms and Conditions/Terms of Service agreement contract at the installation level (or at the license purchase area) and these will state that the company is not liable for any damages whilst using the product (and by this, it's referring to any damages, including the system becoming infected).
The point is that if you think you will become invincible to all malicious software because you install a popular Anti-Virus product, then maybe you shouldn't be using a computer at all or should get reading to learn how to keep yourself safe without relying strictly on security software.
According to your configuration you are using ESET - you do realise that there will be malware which can slip past this also?
The point is that if you think you will become invincible to all malicious software because you install a popular Anti-Virus product, then maybe you shouldn't be using a computer at all or should get reading to learn how to keep yourself safe without relying strictly on security software.
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.
According to your configuration you are using ESET - you do realise that there will be malware which can slip past this also?
If they guaranteed 100% protection in their advertising, otherwise clearly not at fault.
Obviously no AV will ever be 100%.
Obviously no AV will ever be 100%.
- Aug 6, 2014
- 1,044
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.
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.
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.
The solution is for the end-user to read the installation/purchase terms carefully and acknowledge that security products like Anti-Virus solutions are meant to assist them in staying secure and not make them invincible to malicious software, but also for Panda (and any other vendor for that matter) to stop attempting to social engineer the visitors on their websites with their flashy AV-C results and awards and misleading text such as "99.9% detection rate", and so forth. Social engineering visitors into buying products so they live a life with a mind-set of a false sense of security is just as bad as the malware authors who social engineer visitors into downloading and running their malware which will make them money some way or another.
Of course, money is what makes the world go round, but there are good and ethical ways of doing things which won't involve being selfish or pushing little unethical "tricks" in marketing.
- Sep 28, 2015
- 543
Wow. If Panda did say 100%, it serves them right. That'd be a false claim and they know it.
On the other hand, I have a bad feeling about how personal responsibility is being stripped away from individuals one idiot at a time. Earth is on its way to be the home of mindless sheep.
And for those in the U.S., I'd just like to remind you of imbeciles drinking hot coffee at MickeyD's and being awarded millions for burning their cake holes. Not to mention the thousands of stickers regarding mirrors, seat-belts and all kinds of other crap I gotta peel off when I receive a new import. It's common sense, leave us alone and let Darwin do his thing!
On the other hand, I have a bad feeling about how personal responsibility is being stripped away from individuals one idiot at a time. Earth is on its way to be the home of mindless sheep.
And for those in the U.S., I'd just like to remind you of imbeciles drinking hot coffee at MickeyD's and being awarded millions for burning their cake holes. Not to mention the thousands of stickers regarding mirrors, seat-belts and all kinds of other crap I gotta peel off when I receive a new import. It's common sense, leave us alone and let Darwin do his thing!
In these situations there is no one individual/company who are in the wrong, but both parties.
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.
Next time people should remember to read the terms and conditions/service before installing software (not all of it necessarily, but some parts - you should never just Agree to something without knowing what you are giving consent too) and vendors should stop pushing their little social engineering tricks via the misleading advertising.
- Sep 28, 2015
- 543
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.
To my utter dismay, being stupid isn't illegal and Panda's claim didn't hold, so this time granny got lucky.
Last edited:
- Sep 28, 2015
- 543
- Jul 13, 2014
- 766
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.
And also 100% detection, Ultimate protection, Total protection, Complete protection, 100% sure etc...it is no big deal. You don't need a very high level of intelligence to understand that these are marketing tactics.Almost all businesses and cybersecurity firms use those kinds of marketing.You don't sell a product by putting on your website ''Our product detects just what is needed'' or ''It detects 20% of malwares, so you can trust us'' .
You cannot also say that because they said that they block 100% of threats, and you get someone with an infected computer, Panda is bad and all those kind of stuff. The story is nothing compared to the one, where Kaspersky discovered that there was a sophisticated malware that was hiding in its own network.
Kaspersky Finds New Nation-State Attack—In Its Own Network
What would people say then?
Kaspersky is bad and should never be used and so on....
And also 100% detection, Ultimate protection, Total protection, Complete protection, 100% sure etc...it is no big deal. You don't need a very high level of intelligence to understand that these are marketing tactics.Almost all businesses and cybersecurity firms use those kinds of marketing.You don't sell a product by putting on your website ''Our product detects just what is needed'' or ''It detects 20% of malwares, so you can trust us'' .
You cannot also say that because they said that they block 100% of threats, and you get someone with an infected computer, Panda is bad and all those kind of stuff. The story is nothing compared to the one, where Kaspersky discovered that there was a sophisticated malware that was hiding in its own network.
Kaspersky Finds New Nation-State Attack—In Its Own Network
What would people say then?
Kaspersky is bad and should never be used and so on....
Last edited:
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.
Just ignore them, the posts are hateful and aren't even constructive criticism, just general negativity. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but when these same people go out of their way to bash products like you mentioned, just ignore them. Simple as 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.
It's a sad, cruel world we live in. Money makes the world goes round and those people did what they could to get her to pay £160. Instead of her making complaints towards Panda (since it wasn't necessarily their fault she got infected, it was her own fault for not being careful and assuming she can do whatever without a consequence), she should complain to the service she paid £160 too and try to get some money back if possible.
I don't understand why this is so big in the news, but let me tweak the title of the article from what it currently is to: "Antivirus maker forced to pay damages caused by the end-user because they were infected by making stupid decisions and then selfishly blamed it on the AV company because she can".
There's no point in making choices where you can't live with the consequences, therefore make choices in which you can live with the consequences. Every single thing we do in life will have a consequence. Control the outcome.
Last edited by a moderator:
- May 14, 2016
- 1,597
(1) She wanted to install Flash player and not been able
(2) She contacted a PC repair company, who discovered malware on her computer
I like to think on all possibilities, even if some could appear "too much"
=> How long this malware has been on her PC :
(Even in this sector, their are bad persons)
(joke on => Is there an age limitation to put for users, like it should be for car drivers ?)
(2) She contacted a PC repair company, who discovered malware on her computer
I like to think on all possibilities, even if some could appear "too much"
=> How long this malware has been on her PC :
- before or after the installation of Panda ?
- when she tried to install Flash Player ?
=> Has the "PC repair company" really found a malware ? - when she tried to install Flash Player ?
=> false alert ?
=> exploit ? (=> she may attack MS / Adobe)
=> exploit ? (=> she may attack MS / Adobe)
(Even in this sector, their are bad persons)
(joke on => Is there an age limitation to put for users, like it should be for car drivers ?)
Last edited:
- May 11, 2014
- 1,639
Wow I think we should start a movement - honestly I thought that AV's kept you safe from all malware, so now I must sue for damages, stupid old woman; grow-up comes to mind. For one I've heard Panda is crap, but their customer services needs drastic improvement.
P.S. Bleeping Computer would have done it fro free!
P.S. Bleeping Computer would have done it fro free!
- May 11, 2014
- 1,639
I think I should ring them, maybe save them future litigation costs LOL!
Similar threads
- Locked
