<s>
Direct	B-Application
Revenue	I-Application
was	O
a	O
New	O
York	O
City	O
company	O
which	O
distributed	O
software	O
(	O
a	O
downloadable	O
adware	O
client	B-Protocol
)	O
that	O
displays	O
pop-up	O
advertising	O
on	O
web	O
browsers	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
Direct	B-Application
Revenue	I-Application
included	O
Soho	O
Digital	O
and	O
Soho	O
Digital	O
International	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
Direct	B-Application
Revenue	I-Application
's	O
largest	O
distributors	O
were	O
Advertising.com	O
(	O
acquired	O
by	O
AOL	O
)	O
and	O
247	O
Media	O
(	O
acquired	O
by	O
WPP	O
)	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
In	O
October	O
2007	O
,	O
Direct	B-Application
Revenue	I-Application
closed	O
its	O
doors	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
On	O
April	O
4	O
,	O
2006	O
,	O
New	O
York	O
State	O
Attorney	O
General	O
Eliot	O
Spitzer	O
filed	O
suit	O
against	O
Direct	B-Application
Revenue	I-Application
in	O
New	O
York	O
County	O
Supreme	O
Court	O
,	O
alleging	O
that	O
the	O
company	O
's	O
software-distribution	O
practices	O
violated	O
New	O
York	O
's	O
General	O
Business	O
Law	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
In	O
March	O
2008	O
,	O
Direct	B-Application
Revenue	I-Application
was	O
granted	O
a	O
motion	O
to	O
dismiss	O
all	O
the	O
OAG	O
's	O
allegations	O
and	O
the	O
case	O
was	O
dismissed	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
In	O
People	O
v	O
.	O
Direct	B-Application
Revenue	I-Application
LLC	O
,	O
No	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
Cty.	O
,	O
March	O
12	O
,	O
2008	O
)	O
,	O
a	O
New	O
York	O
trial	O
court	O
dismissed	O
the	O
attorney	O
general	O
's	O
deceptive-and-illegal-business-practices	O
case	O
against	O
Direct	B-Application
Revenue	I-Application
.	O
</s>
<s>
The	O
AG	O
sought	O
billions	O
of	O
dollars	O
in	O
penalties	O
against	O
Direct	B-Application
Revenue	I-Application
,	O
seeking	O
to	O
assert	O
the	O
rights	O
of	O
millions	O
of	O
consumers	O
across	O
the	O
country	O
who	O
installed	O
the	O
Direct	B-Application
Revenue	I-Application
adware	O
client	B-Protocol
.	O
</s>
<s>
The	O
state	O
's	O
undoing	O
was	O
Direct	B-Application
Revenue	I-Application
's	O
end-user	O
license	O
agreement	O
(	O
a	O
click	O
contract	O
)	O
and	O
Direct	B-Application
Revenue	I-Application
's	O
agreement	O
with	O
its	O
distributors	O
(	O
which	O
called	O
for	O
fair	O
and	O
lawful	O
distribution	O
of	O
the	O
Direct	B-Application
Revenue	I-Application
adware	O
client	B-Protocol
)	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
29	O
transactions	O
with	O
Direct	B-Application
Revenue	I-Application
(	O
or	O
its	O
distributors	O
)	O
were	O
alleged	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
In	O
transactions	O
where	O
the	O
attorney	O
general	O
's	O
investigator	O
dealt	O
directly	O
with	O
Direct	B-Application
Revenue	I-Application
,	O
the	O
installation	O
of	O
the	O
adware	O
client	B-Protocol
was	O
preceded	O
by	O
a	O
license	O
agreement	O
explaining	O
how	O
the	O
adware	O
client	B-Protocol
operated	O
and	O
how	O
to	O
uninstall	B-Application
it	O
;	O
the	O
agreement	O
also	O
explained	O
the	O
limitations	O
on	O
Direct	B-Application
Revenue	I-Application
's	O
liability	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
There	O
were	O
problems	O
with	O
some	O
installations	O
that	O
were	O
initiated	O
by	O
Direct	B-Application
Revenue	I-Application
's	O
third-party	O
distributors	O
(	O
for	O
example	O
,	O
the	O
license	O
agreement	O
and	O
uninstall	B-Application
instructions	O
were	O
not	O
always	O
displayed	O
prior	O
to	O
installation	O
)	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
However	O
,	O
the	O
court	O
held	O
that	O
Direct	B-Application
Revenue	I-Application
was	O
protected	O
by	O
its	O
Standard	O
Distribution	O
Agreement	O
,	O
a	O
document	O
that	O
directed	O
the	O
third-party	O
distributors	O
to	O
obtain	O
legally	O
valid	O
affirmative	O
consent	O
and	O
make	O
all	O
legally	O
necessary	O
disclosures	O
prior	O
to	O
installation	O
of	O
the	O
adware	O
client	B-Protocol
.	O
</s>
<s>
Turning	O
back	O
claims	O
based	O
on	O
the	O
29	O
transactions	O
completed	O
by	O
state	O
investigators	O
,	O
the	O
court	O
said	O
there	O
was	O
no	O
basis	O
to	O
entertain	O
the	O
attorney	O
general	O
's	O
claims	O
on	O
behalf	O
of	O
all	O
other	O
individuals	O
who	O
allegedly	O
downloaded	O
the	O
Direct	B-Application
Revenue	I-Application
adware	O
client	B-Protocol
.	O
</s>
<s>
Finally	O
,	O
it	O
held	O
,	O
disgorgement	O
of	O
profits	O
would	O
not	O
be	O
an	O
appropriate	O
remedy	O
in	O
this	O
case	O
;	O
Direct	B-Application
Revenue	I-Application
distributed	O
its	O
adware	O
client	B-Protocol
free	O
of	O
charge	O
and	O
took	O
nothing	O
of	O
value	O
from	O
consumers	O
who	O
downloaded	O
it	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
On	O
February	O
16	O
,	O
2007	O
,	O
DirectRevenue	B-Application
settled	O
with	O
the	O
Federal	O
Trade	O
Commission	O
without	O
admitting	O
to	O
any	O
wrongdoing	O
and	O
was	O
barred	O
from	O
using	O
affiliates	O
who	O
engage	O
in	O
"	O
drive-by	O
downloads	O
"	O
or	O
what	O
the	O
FTC	O
deems	O
deceptive	O
practices	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
Direct	B-Application
Revenue	I-Application
closed	O
several	O
months	O
later	O
,	O
in	O
part	O
due	O
to	O
the	O
settlement	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
In	O
People	O
v	O
.	O
Direct	B-Application
Revenue	I-Application
,	O
the	O
New	O
York	O
Attorney	O
General	O
in	O
2008	O
attempted	O
to	O
prevent	O
Direct	B-Application
Revenue	I-Application
from	O
distributing	O
software	O
that	O
served	O
pop-up	O
advertising	O
software	O
on	O
consumers’	O
computers	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
Direct	B-Application
Revenue	I-Application
did	O
not	O
charge	O
fees	O
to	O
consumers	O
;	O
instead	O
,	O
it	O
charges	O
fees	O
to	O
the	O
companies	O
whose	O
products	O
it	O
advertises	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
One	O
line	O
of	O
attack	O
by	O
the	O
New	O
York	O
Attorney	O
General	O
focused	O
on	O
Direct	B-Application
Revenue	I-Application
's	O
“	O
click-wrapped	O
”	O
(	O
where	O
the	O
user	O
clicks	O
on	O
“	O
I	O
accept	O
”	O
)	O
end-user	O
license	O
agreement	O
(	O
EULA	O
)	O
and	O
Direct	B-Application
Revenue	I-Application
's	O
alleged	O
deceptive	O
and	O
illegal	O
practices	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
The	O
court	O
granted	O
Direct	B-Application
Revenue	I-Application
's	O
motion	O
to	O
dismiss	O
the	O
claims	O
,	O
noting	O
that	O
sufficient	O
disclosure	O
was	O
given	O
in	O
the	O
EULA	O
and	O
the	O
required	O
elements	O
for	O
an	O
enforceable	O
agreement	O
were	O
followed	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
New	O
York	O
then	O
focused	O
on	O
the	O
customer	O
agreements	O
of	O
Direct	B-Application
Revenue	I-Application
's	O
resellers	O
,	O
in	O
an	O
attempt	O
to	O
hold	O
Direct	B-Application
Revenue	I-Application
liable	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
The	O
result	O
was	O
the	O
same	O
as	O
with	O
the	O
EULA	O
—	O
Direct	B-Application
Revenue	I-Application
was	O
not	O
held	O
liable	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
New	O
York	O
conceded	O
that	O
Direct	B-Application
Revenue	I-Application
's	O
resellers	O
were	O
independent	O
contractors	O
,	O
rather	O
than	O
agents	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
In	O
addition	O
,	O
the	O
court	O
noted	O
that	O
Direct	B-Application
Revenue	I-Application
's	O
software-distribution	O
agreement	O
required	O
its	O
distributors	O
to	O
obtain	O
consumer	O
consent	O
consistent	O
with	O
the	O
EULA	O
and	O
prohibited	O
distributors	O
from	O
excluding	O
themselves	O
as	O
agents	O
of	O
Direct	B-Application
Revenue	I-Application
.	O
</s>
<s>
New	O
York	O
argued	O
that	O
Direct	B-Application
Revenue	I-Application
should	O
be	O
liable	O
because	O
its	O
servers	O
interacted	O
with	O
the	O
consumers’	O
computers	O
in	O
the	O
software-installation	O
process	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
Finally	O
,	O
New	O
York	O
argued	O
that	O
Direct	B-Application
Revenue	I-Application
should	O
be	O
held	O
liable	O
for	O
the	O
actions	O
of	O
its	O
resellers	O
,	O
on	O
the	O
ground	O
that	O
Direct	B-Application
Revenue	I-Application
ratified	O
the	O
conduct	O
of	O
its	O
resellers	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
The	O
court	O
ruled	O
that	O
mere	O
knowledge	O
of	O
consumer	O
complaints	O
was	O
insufficient	O
to	O
impose	O
liability	O
on	O
Direct	B-Application
Revenue	I-Application
,	O
in	O
light	O
of	O
the	O
fact	O
that	O
when	O
Direct	B-Application
Revenue	I-Application
had	O
actual	O
knowledge	O
of	O
reseller	O
misconduct	O
,	O
it	O
took	O
steps	O
to	O
remedy	O
the	O
problem	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
Aurora	O
:	O
Released	O
April	O
2005	O
,	O
Aurora	O
is	O
an	O
adware	O
client	B-Protocol
notorious	O
for	O
the	O
nail.exe	O
component	O
,	O
and	O
has	O
been	O
criticized	O
on	O
several	O
fronts	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
BestOffers	O
:	O
Released	O
September	O
2005	O
,	O
BestOffers	O
is	O
an	O
adware	O
client	B-Protocol
.	O
</s>
<s>
BetterInternet	O
:	O
Released	O
mid-2003	O
,	O
BetterInternet	O
is	O
another	O
adware	O
client	B-Protocol
,	O
and	O
is	O
also	O
used	O
as	O
an	O
umbrella	O
term	O
for	O
several	O
other	O
clients	O
.	O
</s>
