{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03766707168894289, 'fraction_numerical': 0.00850546780072904, 'mean_word_length': 5.195488721804511, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Amicus Brief of Cybersecurity Law Professors in Enigma Software v. Malwarebytes

In Enigma Software v. Malwarebytes, the Ninth Circuit ruled that 47 U.S.C. 230(c)(2)(B) does not protect anti-threat classification decisions that are allegedly based on "anti-competitive animus." This amicus brief, joined by 7 professors, explains how the Ninth Circuit's ruling makes the Internet less safe. Many anti-threat software programs are, in fact, rogue software that should be classified as threats. Those classification decisions will create greater legal risk, and that will discourage legitimate anti-threat vendors from labeling rogue software as threats. To ensure that anti-threat software vendors can continue to vigorously protect consumers from rogue software, the amicus brief urges the Ninth Circuit to rehear the case.