On the surface, this looks like a decent outcome. Tortious Interference. Malwarebytes gives users instructions on how to keep using PUPs, so no tortious interference.

The court says “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 un-quarantine the detected program….Enigma’s allegations that Malwarebytes knew the labels used to describe Enigma’s programs were false are conclusory and need not be accepted as true.” The court says this case is “indistinguishable” from Asurvio. Malwarebytes, the court held that such labels were subjective opinions, not verifiably false. Enigma claimed it was false for Malwarebytes to call its programs “malicious,” “threats,” and PUPs. In a terrible ruling, the Ninth Circuit reversed on the misguided theory that Malwarebytes and Enigma are competitors and thus Malwarebytes may have made its classification decisions based on “anticompetitive animus.” On remand, after 2 more years of litigation, the district court has again dismissed the lawsuit, this time on its lack of merits. Initially, the district court dismissed the case on Section 230(c)(2)(B) grounds. Enigma sued Malwarebytes for that classification/quarantine. Malwarebytes classified Enigma’s software as a “potentially unwanted program,” or PUP, and quarantined the programs. Malwarebytes and Enigma offer competitive anti-threat software.

Malwarebytes phone number usa