<i>Devil&#x27;s advocate: where does this line start and stop?</i>
<i>Stores aren&#x27;t held responsible for bad products</i><p>I don&#x27;t know about the US, but in the UK and Europe they are.  The contract is with the retailer, so you can sue them.  There is an expectation that things we get are <i>safe.</i>  They are frequently crap, but rarely damage your other things or injure you.  If something breaks after minimal use it would not be of &quot;merchantable quality&quot; and you&#x27;d be entitled to a full refund from the retailer.  Likewise claims and statements to the public and in advertising must be true.  (IANAL)<p>Now, Download make a big deal of being a trusted source, and will not accept &quot;Software that installs viruses, Trojan horses, malicious adware, spyware, or other malicious software at any point during or after installation&quot;.  There&#x27;s a very lengthy list of what they don&#x27;t allow and how they are curating their offerings.  They have, for quite some time, been failing in this.  For pity&#x27;s sake they even have dark patterns and show ads with prominent download buttons, which aren&#x27;t.<p>As they want to be a trusted source, and have lengthy text telling us they won&#x27;t accept malware and that they curate everything, I think they <i>should</i> fall foul of the browser&#x27;s safe browsing filters.<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.donotlink.com&#x2F;framed?614744" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.donotlink.com&#x2F;framed?614744</a> Their malware policies.<p>If, on the other hand they said plainly &quot;we make only limited checks, downloader beware&quot;, fair enough.  Just like a forum disclaiming views of posters.<p>TL;DR Yes, they should be held responsible for what they serve, or stop claiming to be so trustworthy and &quot;We test all submitted software products according to comprehensive criteria.&quot;.