Could this not also apply to ads? If so then certain people's claims of "adblocking is stealing" just went out the window according to US LAW. Not that it ever was taken seriously, but that has it pretty cut and dry (black and white) doesn't it?The basis for the court's ruling was the Communications Decency Act, which contains a "safe harbor" provision in Section 230. The law provides protection for "any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, and harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected."
Edit: another part that applies I think.
Although the company tried to argue that it was not, in fact, offering objectionable material, the judge pointed out what the law says: namely, it is up to the user or the service provider to determine what is or is not objectionable. Zango's argument, noted the judge, "is based on a misreading of the statute."
In other words, if Kaspersky wants to block something, and the user wants to let Kaspersky do its business, Zango has no cause for complaint.