Concorrenza sleale denigratoria e interferenza illecita nelle relazioni contrattuali altrui

Un tribunale della California giudica la lite promossa da ENIGMA SOFTWARE GROUP USA LLC, contro MALWAREBYTES INC., competitors nel settore del software antivirus e antiintrusioni (US D.C.NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION, Enigma c. Malwarebytes, 9 agosto 2021, Case 5:17-cv-02915-EJD) . 

L’azione si basa spt. su concorrenza sleale denigratoria e interferenza nelle relazioni contrattuali: M. aveva qualificato come “malicious,” a “threat,” and as a Potentially Unwanted Program (“PUP”) il software di E.

1) Ex Lanham act, § 43.a , a plaintiff must allege that: (1) the defendant made a false statement of fact in a commercial advertisement, (2) the statement actually deceived or has the tendency to deceive a substantial segment of its audience, (3) the statement is material, (4) the defendant caused the statement to “enter interstate commerce,” and (5) the plaintiff has been or is likely to be injured as a result of the false statement.

Domanda però rigettata poichè , come nel caso Asurvio LP, Enigma has not pleaded that Malwarebytes’ alleged labels are verifiably false rather than just subjective opinions. Enigma’s allegations that users view statements categorizing Enigma’s programs and domains as “malicious, “threats,” and PUPs as statements of fact rather than subjective opinions are not supported by the facts presented. The allegations ignore that users of Malwarebytes are aware of why it opines that a given software program may be a PUP based on Malwarebytes’ disclosed criteria and can choose to quarantine or unquarantine the detected program, p. 17.

Si tratta insomma di mere opinioni.

2) tortious Interference with Business Relations.

Quest’azione richiede che l’attore provi (1) an economic relationship between the [claimant] and some third party, with the probability of future economic benefit to the [claimant], (2) that the opposing party knew of the relationship, (3) an intentional, wrongful act designed to disrupt the relationship, (4) actual disruption of the relationship, and (5) that the act caused economic harm to the claimant..

Ebbene, il rigetto della precedente domanda porta al ritgetto pure di questa: Here, Malwarebytes argues that since Enigma’s Lanham Act and NYGBL § 349 claims fail, Enigma’s tortious interference claim must also fail because Enigma does not allege any other independently wrongful conduct. Mot. at 2021. The Court agrees, and, therefore, grants Malwarebytes’ motion to dismiss the claim for tortious interference with business relations on this ground, p. 19.