Nationwide Class Action Filed Against DoubleClick

Stanley Ference writes "A nationwide class action lawsuit has been commenced in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, against DoubleClick Inc. DoubleClick is a leading provider of products and services used by direct marketers, web publishers and advertisers to plan, execute and analyze marketing programs. In 2002, Doubleclick served more than 630 billion ads on the Internet for thousands of customers." If you've ever been tricked by one of those ads telling you that your "connection is not optimized" or that you have "1 new message waiting," you could be part of the class. Read on for details.

Stanley Ference continues: "The class action complaint alleges that DoubleClick deceptively and fraudulently commandeered millions of Internet users to the commercial websites of DoubleClick's customers through dissemination of tens-of-millions of fraudulent Internet advertising banners that impersonated computer system messages. The Complaint states that through use of such Fake User Interface ("FUI") dialogs that fraudulently represented themselves as computer system error messages, DoubleClick tricked millions of Internet users into interrupting the work they were performing to respond to the fraudulent system message, only to unexpectedly find both computer and computer user thus hijacked to commercial websites of DoubleClick's customers.

Additional information about this lawsuit, including an illustration of the advertising banners that are the subject of this lawsuit, may be found at ferencelaw.com/doubleclick."

Here's a link to the press release (PDF) announcing the filing of this lawsuit.

Re:Damn - fooled again

No, that would be a run-of-the-mill advertisement. A FUI would be an offical looking "All Trucks Must Exit Here" sign leading to a truck-repair center.

Or, maybe more realistically, a sign that says "Warning: next stop for blinker fluid in 200 miles"

Re:Damn - fooled again

Or, maybe more realistically, a sign that says "Warning: next stop for blinker fluid in 200 miles"

This really gets people the older they get. Not only do they need blinker fluid more often because they often forget to turn off their blinkers but they're also more likely to be taken in by the hoax. This is why I never use my blinkers.

Re:Damn - fooled again

Just have to check - you know there's no such thing as blinker fluid, right?

Re:Damn - fooled again

...when I see signs when I'm on the freeway saying there are once in a lifetime deals at a car dealer I get off the road right away...

Despite freeway billboards being annoying they do not attempt to immitate actual road signs, which is illegal.

Even on private streaches of road it is illigal for you to post signes that closely mimic the ugly white on green government signage. Why should critical looking computer message that trick users be all that different... Mike

Re:Damn - fooled again

I think we SHOULD go after beer advertizers when babes don't flock to me. Untruthful advertising is especially bad - this is advertising that is intentionally attempting to decieve people by placing an add that mimics a legitimate warning. It'd be like advertising medicine by sending you mail that look like it was from a health clinic claiming you had a disease.

In what way would it harm our nation and economy if products had to advertise based soley on legitimate, provable objective benefits of thier products? No paid actors giving "testimonials", no hints that using it will get you laid - just bare, provable facts. We'd all be better off.

Full disclosure time - do you work for an advertising company?

Re:Damn - fooled again

I think deceptive advertisers should be punished. Frivilous lawsuits have nothing to do with this.

If you deliberately deceive, you should suffer the consequences. As it is, the system is set up to reward the vast majority of those who lie and mislead, harrass and annoy in the name of commercialism. Screw 'em.

Re:Damn - fooled again

And when I see signs when I'm on the freeway saying there are once in a lifetime deals at a car dealer I get off the road right away.

This is a bit different. If you saw a sign that said 'Traffic advisery, use this route instead.' you may very well follow it, and would be quite pissed that it was a ploy to get you to look at new cars. I'm sure most computer users aren't savvy enough to tell that it was a fake ad, since it was designed to look just like a message box in windows.

I don't see why you think the FTC should handle it; they'd likely do nothing at all. A class action suit is more likely to get something done, and i for one wouldn't mind if it shut down double click forever.

Re:Damn - fooled again

I'm sure most computer users aren't savvy enough to tell that it was a fake ad, since it was designed to look just like a message box in windows.

That's so true. I teach Windows & general computer related stuff to two persons, and the two of them fell for the "windows-alike-ad" trick. And not that they are dumb or anything; it's just that they know very little about computers and the Internet.

The funny thing is that these ads are always in english, but the Windows version used in the classes is all in spanish (I'm in Spain). And anyway, they click the ad. I'm sure it's some kind of animal response to flashing things :-)

Re:Damn - fooled again

It's more like this scenario: A police car flashes you. Do you pull over? Of course. An officer gets out and walks to your car and only when he gets to your car window and begins to try to sell you Chanel copies do you realize that his badge reads "great scents", that the logo on the side of his car reads "To Scent and Perfect" and that the thing on his belt is a credit card reader, not a baton.

Re:Damn - fooled again

It's more like this scenario: A police car flashes you. Do you pull over? Of course. An officer gets out and walks to your car and only when he gets to your car window and begins to try to sell you Chanel copies do you realize that his badge reads "great scents", that the logo on the side of his car reads "To Scent and Perfect" and that the thing on his belt is a credit card reader, not a baton.

Glad I'm not the only one that's happened to. I swear on the beltway that between the unmarked police cars and the policecar salesmen it's a miracle anyone can tell who is who. Though I will say, the Chanel knock offs are great at removing engine deposits and removing gum from the bottom of shoes.

Re:Damn - fooled again

but I think it should be the FTC dealing with it not class action lawsuits

Hold on! The FTC is a federal agency, and the actions of this agency can be controlled by the executive, and even members of Congress who weigh in on particular matters. Consider, for example, how the DOJ let Microsoft off the hook, even though it had won critical fact-findings at the district court.

Regardless of your personal political view, do you really want politicized agencies having exclusive enforcements?

There's a class of lawsuits known as "private attorney general" actions, where ordinary citizens can sue to enforce laws and rules (if these laws allow such actions). This is explicit recognition by the legislature that their agencies charged with enforcing the laws often don't get their priorities right, and that sometimes, justice can come from common citizens.

A similar legislative goal is behind class action suits, but there are other goals, such as efficiency and conservation of scarce judicial resources.

Could you follow up with more specific reasons why you think only a federal agency should have the power to police advertising? Please provide information about how "zealous" the FTC has been under various administrations about pursuing all law-breakers, and not just those without the common sense to make hefty political donations and retain Washington lobbyists (like Microsoft).

Re:Damn - fooled again

After browsing 50+ of these posts I must ask:

what the hell is wrong with 90% of the posters here? Are you really so f***ing arrogant or are you just 14-year-olds who have no other ability besides beeing able to use a computer? Wait.. this is slashdot... forget I asked.

Do you honestly think that a person who clicks on these adds is stupid? How the hell do you excpect someone with no computer skills to spot the difference between the add and a genuine warning?

Do you honestly think it requires intelligence to use a computer? The only thing you need is memory silly people! Experience is what lets you be aware of these things, nothing else.

I assume all the geniuses here are instantly able to spot the difference between an true arabic fullblood (a great horse) and the nordic coldblood (another, very different, horse) the horsedealer over there is trying to sell you...?
Oh wait, you need to have seen them before you say? Good golly, I thought you could spot the difference through your amazing intelligence?

and no, I have never clicked on these adds, not because I'm intelligent, but because I have experience with computers.

Whoa whoa whoa

So I don't have one new message waiting for me?

Re:Whoa whoa whoa

No, actually, you don't... There's a bug that causes your software to think you have a new message waiting for you, which points to the fact that your connection isn't optimized.

Re:Whoa whoa whoa

Hey. I got one too and it's fake as we...

oh shit! gotta go. my computer is broadcasting an ip address

in other words

" If you've ever been tricked by one of those ads telling you that your "connection is not optimized" or that you have "1 new message waiting," you could be part of the class

You can be part of the the Class action if you are willing to admit that you are stupid.

Warning Your Computer Has Been Hijacked!!

Click now to discover whether YOU are eligible for a part of the MULTIMILLION payoff against DoubleClick!!!

Yes, you too can be part of the twenty-first century "I'M SO STUPID I DESERVE MONEY" movement.

Click now and receive $$$'s!!! (*)

* Subject to reality.

Re:Warning Your Computer Has Been Hijacked!!

Problem is, computer expertise is not a matter of intelligence, but rather a matter of practice. My mom can barely navigate through sending an email through yahoo mail, is it because she's an idiot? No, it's because she never uses a computer. Those ads are targeted towards people like her, who don't know better. Of course you and I know better.

But hey, who cares about making sense, you made your funny little post and you'll get your +1 Funny mods, that's all that matters!

Re:Warning Your Computer Has Been Hijacked!!

Personally, I always mod up posts where someone calls other people stupid. That way people won't think I am stupid. Like the person posting the article, I am driven by what other people think of me.

Anyway, I agree that the smartest people I know don't spend that much time with computers, or watching television for that matter.

I don't own a TV, but when I see a TV, I notice that I am more impacted by the commercials than people who've been anesthesized by the machine.

With computers, the marketing data seems to show that when advertisers introduce a new type or shape of ad, the click rates will go up, until people get used to them. I suspect that if you measured the activity of new Internet users, you would see them clicking on the 468x60 ads at the same pace as the new Google/adsense ads. Conversely, as the market is anesthized to the adsense format, its rates will drop.

But back to calling people names. I haven't heard any disparaging remarks about Iceland for awhile; so, I would like to say that anyone who lives in Iceland is stupid...and get some mod points.

PS: if you live in Iceland, I apologize for the crude, and blatantly false remark, but, hey, we do what we can for mod points.

Re:Warning Your Computer Has Been Hijacked!!

Problem is, computer expertise is not a matter of intelligence, but rather a matter of practice

Very true, my friend. So who here on /. can install a linux distro? Yeah, now who here can safely demolish and reconstruct an artec ceiling, and knows the correct treatment for brickwork so that it won't crumble? If I sold you a tin of varnish that would make your house last twice as long, and your house collapsed because what I sold you was actually sulphuric acid, would you sue me? Do you perform a titration on your Big Mac with a pippette and burette to see how acidic it is every time you buy one? Or due you *assume* and *trust* that your Big Mac ain't got cyanide in it. Why doesn't McDonalds say, "Ha ha! Loser, you don't even do basic chemical tests that any dumb 6 grader can do on your food before you eat it, you deserve what you get dumbass!"

On /. we take the piss out of normal people that get duped by fake UI's, but when the guy at McDonalds wipes the Big Mac beef patty on his ass and serves it to us, we get pissed off. Why? We see a Big Mac and we assume it's edible, the marketing and packaging dictate that it is, and we BUY it for the marketing and packaging. That makes marketing and packaging directly liable. A professional conoisseur can easily spot/smell whether a beef patty has been wiped on someone's ass, but does that mean he can take the piss out of us C++ hAxOrS because we can't smell/taste it?

Re:I see the flaw...

Well this is why advertising is legal. I've said it before and I'll say it again - all advertising is fraudulent. There is no such thing as an unfraudulent ad. "Puff talk" or "puffery" is the legal term of art for 'de minimus fraud' and the only reason it's okay is because to prove up fraud, you need to show reliance. Few people, if any, are going to admit they relied on Katherine Zeta Jones saying X product is the best deal around. Thus, the fraud continues.

Not a problem

From the law firm's website:

WHO IS A MEMBER OF THE PROPOSED CLASS?

The class action Complaint was brought on behalf of all persons residing in the United States who have, while operating a computer, encountered an advertising banner like the one illustrated on this website.

If you saw the ads, you're a member of the class. You don't have to have clicked on any of them.

wait a sec ...

For me to get into this class action lawsuit I have to admit that I am a dumb ass and was tricked by a "FUI" ...

True Story

My mother was sitting there clicking one of those ads for about 15 minutes and closing out the new window every time it opened. The reason? It said "Click OK to close this window." I was commandeered into showing her that you have to click the little X button to close out the window. Maybe I'm biased, but I'm glad they're finally getting sued for taking advantage of the people that are, shall we say, less-than-knowledgeable internet users.

Will anyone ever know?

It's all well and good asking for people who have been fooled by these, but to be fair, how many people who ever have thought those things were genuine are likely to ever find out about this action?

I'm just waiting.....

To start getting spam mail about this. "Yes, you too can earn millions like your favorite corporations like SCO and engage in frivilous litigation! All at home, and in under 8 hours a week!!".

Oh well, at least if I get part of the settlement I can start buying some of those penis pills and russian brides everyone keeps telling me about. I mean honestly, I don't even know half of these people. I guess I just met em at a party or something, but they seem to have gotten my name confused with someone elses. Jesus, you'd think I was on some kind of mailing list or something.

Amusing

I had a friend who saw one of these pop-ups. It looked exactly like an MSDOS window, complete with a copyright message from Microsoft, the correct font, and a message implying there were serious system problems. Clicking on the "Close" box brought up the website, I learned later.

All of this, of course, was on his KDE desktop... (no, I've no idea why he had pop-ups enabled.)

I hope this succeeds..

..Only because I want them to change their advertising practices to get away from the egregious misleading practices that most of the vendors they push ads for concoct.. ..I don't care if you want to pop an ad up about performance parts for my car if I happen to be on a tuner website looking at mods for my car. What I don't agree with is all those 'your connection is not optimized' crapola that they flash at me when I'm say, reading tomshardware. That stuff IS blatantly misleading and would be equivalent in the real world to setting up a billboard on the side of the BQE and stating something to the effect of 'If you're driving a chevy, your brakes are wearing down at an alarming rate! Pull over and call Bob's car parts NOW, or you will DIE, mouthbreather!!'...
That kind of advertising is a classic ploy praying on people who are ignorant of the real working of the technology being pushed and used.

Are your brakes less than optimal? Well sure, if you've taken the car out of the driveway in the last six months, hell even if its been driven off the truck that brought them to the dealership.. That does NOT mean that my brakes are going to fail that very moment and that by not following the ad to the product I'm in some sort of imminent doom.. ..I hope they smack those bastards, I really really do..

Punch the Monkey!

I dont understand why they have to fake the AD's. Just give me something I'd click.

Barely clothed Hot chicks. They could have them hold Linux distros with headlines like "Real men use this distro" or "How hard is your Hardware".

Hey, how many of you checkout a vendor just because of a cute Booth Babe [google.com]? Exactly...

advertisements & falsity

Doesnt it always go that advertisements carry some degree of falsity and the viewer must exercise his/her own good judgement ? If there is a similar ad on a television stating that if you sweat profusely after a small walk you could be suffering from high blood pressure, would it warrant a class action suit ?

Mozilla, you let me down

Just think, if I hadn't blocked images from all of doubleclick's servers, and disabled those popups... I might be in for some money! Curse you, Mozilla!

I don't have the background to comment on the legitimacy of this suit -- but I sure am curious to see how it plays out, since I have always hated the deceptiveness of those ads. My wife gets fooled occasionally, and I have to clean all that Gator crap off the computer *again*. If only she'd swear off IE for good....

Who should really be upset

DoubleClick's clients should really be upset. If you were paying DoubleClick to drive traffic to your site, wouldn't you want traffic that at least voluntarily sought information about what you provide rather than fools who clicked the "your system is not secure" pseudo dialog box?

good and bad...

let's be honest here... the 'class' will get jack shit if this case is successful. A few seconds worth of looking at ads? Even at lawyerly rates that's pennies. The only people tjhat could walk away better off (financially) are the lawyers.

On the other hand, if it takes an ambulance chasing laywer to stop these practices, that's not entirely bad. Except that they don't have the consumer's best interest in mind, they have their own best interest in mind.

Legislation through Litigation is the wrong answer. If they really did soemthing illegal or wrong, there are appropriate gov't agencies to deal with it.

Re:good and bad...

Honestly, I could care less that the lawyers walk away with a nice bankroll. Most people wouldn't care if they see one red cent from double-click, so long as the settlement was enough to bankrupt double-click. The nice side effect of a win in this is to make advertisers think twice about using deceptive ads, and that's a very good thing.

Plus it's done without government involvement, which is always nice.

Re:good and bad...

let's be honest here... the 'class' will get jack shit if this case is successful.

If it puts doubleclick out of business, I win, even if I get no money.

If it hurts doubleclick, I win, even if I get no money.

If it sends a message to doubleclick and others that some of the things they are doing on the internet are illegal and helps curb partices like installing crap on your system that you don't want and never accepted, then I really win, even if I get no money.

And if it keep these lawyers busy in a suit against doubleclick rather than asuit against someone who does not deserve it, I'll consider that a win too.

Misleading can be clever

I agree that DoubleClick's advertising practices are misleading, unethical, and just plain stupid.

On the other hand... Does anyone remember those Orkin commercials where it looks like a cockroach is crawling across your screen? Clever advertising, even if it is misleading. There was a lawsuit a while back by some idiot woman who threw her shoe at the TV when she saw the ad. If I remember correctly, she lost the lawsuit, as she should have.

True, it's a slightly different scenario for this DoubleClick lawsuit. The key difference is that in the cockroach commercial, it's /obviously/ a commercial. Not so for those damn DoubleClick ads, to the moderately-literate computer user.

IMHO, the best eventual outcome of this DoubleClick lawsuit would be some laws requiring Internet advertisers (operating in the U.S. of course, sigh) mark their ads as such, with a big red "ADVERTISEMENT" in the upper left corner. Sort of like newspaper ads.

Stupid is as stupid does...

The intelligence of computer users has nothing to do with the merits of the suit. Let's face it, legal rules cannot assume that people will be smart, since everyone is often dumb, and many people are always dumb.

That said, advertisers have never been allowed to make patently false claims. Just because these adds were on the internet, and not on TV, or radio, or in a magazine has no bearing on anything. Given the amount of latitude they have to stretch, bend, and massage the truth, it should be enough. Suing for outright lies seems pretty reasonable, and the couple cents per person they get in damages will make a nice symbolic warning.

Re:Query...

Nuala O'Connor, DoubleClick's vice president for data protection and chief privacy officer, began Aug. 13, 2001, as the Commerce Department's deputy director of the Office of Policy and Strategic Planning & in 2002, became Chief Counsel for Technology. I don't think Ashcroft heads the Commerce Department, but you're almost "close enough for government work":

• Doubleclick exec takes a top post at Commerce Department [insecure.org]
• The original article from "Wired" is here [wired.com]. The O'Connor part of the story starts about halfway down.
• Here's another article from "Wired" [wired.com], about a week after O'Connor started.
• Last year, O'Connor became Chief Counsel for Technology for the Department's Technology Administration [commerce.gov]

What about corporations?

Shouldn't they be able to get in on the lawsuit? After all, if a user gets tricked by a FUI in a large company, it's usually IT that has to deal with it--that means added support costs.

about time

I've been absolutely furious about these ads for quite some time now. I run into them all the time. I haven't clicked on any, but I was certain that it would confuse a lot of people who were having difficulty navigating their computers anyways.

What I find to be a cleverer advertising method is to have your ads built into little games that pop up. I've been distracted by one in particular from IBM where you have to put different shapes into their respective slots before the timer runs out. Exactly like this kid's game that a childhood friend of mine (don't remember the name of it though). If some ad threw out a tetris game, it'd be all over for me.

They deserve it!

DoubleClick's entire business model is based on gross invasion of what little privacy we have left, intensive data mining, consumer profiling, spamming, etc., ad nauseum. Far as I'm concerned, they deserve this!

Some examples: In 1998, the spammed Princeton U, [rice.edu] trolling for job candidates. In June of 2003, DoubleClick announced their own so-called anti-spam initiatives [internetnews.com] that, according to the article, will "focus on finding out how consumers identify spam, to give marketers a better idea of how they can avoid being unfairly singled out as spammers." (For the record, spam is any E-mail received that tries to sell you something or, in the case of political spam, get your vote, and that you did not ask for).

Want more? No problem. In 2001, DoubleClick two unnamed E-mail marketing companies [thestandard.com] to, according to a quote in the article from CBS's Market Watch, "increase its junk e-mail capabilities."

Still not convinced? How about this thread [insecure.org] over at the Firewall-Wizards site from 1999?

In summary, it looks like DoubleClick has long attempted to redefine spam as "That Which We Do Not Do." It also appears that their ethics are questionable at best, especially in light of those FUI banners on web pages.

DoubleClick, if you're reading this... You brought it on yourselves, and you have nothing but your own shady practices to blame. May you go down in a nice, pretty set of multicolored flames, and may the ashes be used as space filler for the next five Great Deconstructed Architectural Makeovers in FunFun Town. Nick Danger [thrillingdetective.com] could probably use a new office...

Unfortunately won't get anywhere.

No matter what they do, DoubleClick will always, repeatedly, be able to claim a mistrial for conflict of interest. After all, where in the US are you going to find a Judge that doesn't hate banner ads? (Then again, maybe that's why they filed it in PA...)

*ahem*

If you've ever been tricked by one of those ads telling you that your "connection is not optimized" or that you have "1 new message waiting," you could be part of the class.

If you've ever been tricked by one of _those_ ads then what are you doing reading /. ? Get yourself back to AOL and stop getting big ideas.

Precedent says . . .

Precedent may have already lost them their case:

http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/03/05/28/173228.shtml? tid=123&tid=99 [slashdot.org]

Will they, as opposed to the purple monkey people, have to pay damages though? One could argue that knowing the outcome of the above case meant they KNEW that what they were doing was illegal.

Either way I dont care, doubleclick is dev/nulled out in my hosts file :).

Windows FUI on my Mac

The programmers at DoubleClick are coding wizards...they must have spent months getting Windows APIs to work on my Mac. I don't even need to have Virtual PC running to access these important system messages...

barking up the wrong tree?

WHy do they sue doubleclick? When benneton had an 'inappropriate' billboard at some time benneton had to fix it, not the ad agency nor the billboard owner... crazy stuff..

If this had happened in China...

...would that have possibly been a Hong Kong FUI?

*rimshot*

Here's another one...or two

Just last week I spent a week's vacation in San Diego, using my compuserve account (otherwise unused except for email) to access the Grand Internet. Interestingly enough, the only pop-up ad I received all week through CIS was an ad that said something to the effect of "click through to here to buy a product to prevent you from getting these pop-up ads again". It's a pop-up ad advertising a product that would prevent a specific pop-up ad from popping up. AOL users are getting the same pop-up ad. It seems to me (and I am a lawyer) that this is little more than extortion. It's a message that says nothing other than "pay me money, and I'll stop bothering you". I'm not a class action attorney (I do trusts and estates work), but it seems to me that this kind of advertisement is actionable, because it's not really advertising a product - it's not much more than "protection".

Not only that, but I also noticed that while using CIS software to access the Internet, Real Player added a framed advertisement to my IE windows requesting that I visit their website and pay them for an upgrade (before you knock IE, remember that most Windows users use IE and Real may just as easily be able to effect other browers - I wouldn't know, I'm not a programmer). I'm not sure this is actionable, as Real One gets installed when the Compuserve software is installed, but it is annoying as all hell, and I don't like it, and I'll be damned if I ever give them any money. Anyone out there running AOL or CIS should check out their IE brower as well. The software adds a real player icon to the IE toolbar.

StupidPeople? Or stupid advertising?

Good! I'm sick of those lame advertisements! To be sure, I don't really mind banner ads. It's pop-ups that piss me off. But banner ads that are annoyingly animated or those that pretend to be lame computer messages are just plain tiring.

People who actually believe those are error messages are StupidPeople (tm). Like, you can't tell that it's part of a web page, stupid.

Just a little side note: It reminds me of all these stupid people on my cousin's street. I came to L.A. for a week (I live in Mexico City, if you must know) to visit my cousin and his buddies, and to go booze it up on the Sunset strip. So there's this stupid restaurant on the corner of his street, another one of those "trendy" restaurants with one-syllable names (because StupidPeople cannot remember names with more than one syllable--it overflows their stack), and it's always crowded. The StupidPeople who eat there always park their cars on my cousin's street, and as a result, my cousin and all his neighbors are at a loss to find parking spaces. During the weekend, it's especially bad. To make matters ironic, his street is permit-parking only. So he called the parking enforcement agency and they came by and ticketed at least 10 different cars. All these StupidPeople came back to their cars, saw the tickets, and started reading the parking signs, as if they didn't know that it's illegal to park there without a permit. What's even funnier? My cousin's roommate was outside when one such group of StupidPeople pulled up in their Stupid Ugly Vehicle (SUV) and he told them that they can't park there. They did anyway, got a ticket, and then acted all surprised when they did (I watched them gleefully from the window when they returned to their car).

I call them StupidPeople because they all look the same. They all have this Los Angeles accent and vocabulary that is different than in, say, Louisville. All the women have stupid, meaningless tattoos on their lower backs. All the men have a lame haircut. And you can tell by their speech that unlike the typical computer geek, they do not have a brain inside their head. They are simply StupidPeople. Their stupidity drives me up the wall.

Back to banner ads: People who fell for this trick should not be allowed to use a computer in the first place. And the people who made these stupid ads should be shot for lack of imagination.

Re:i simply block them

I don't want to start a flame war, but I've been using Mozilla for a year (since 1.0), and with its popup blocking feature, I haven't seen one of those god-awful windows EVER.
Double-click wasted a lot of my time back when I was using IE. We all thought they would go bankrupt back in 2001, but they just kept surviving. Maybe this will break the bank and smother the dark side forever.