Class Action Lawsuit Against Spammer

sfjoe writes "California-based spammer eTracks is being sued by the law firm, Morrison and Foerster (who have a very cool homepage). M & F's press release says they are "...seeking other relief, including attorneys' fees and statutorily authorized damages of $50 for each email delivered in violation of the law, up to $25,000 per day". California's anti-spam law has already held up under appeals court scrutiny so this may very well be a major setback to the spam industry." I think spammers should be forced to pay by donating an organ for each forged header.

Comments

Re:what gives?

[GigsVT]

There are specific laws in most states against sending spam with forged headers.

These people are not legitimate marketers. They collect names, that much is probably legal, but the illegal part comes when they commit computer trespass, exploiting poorly configured servers, and signing the mail with fraudulent return addresses.

If these crimes take place in other countries, it may be legal, but it is illegal in most of the united states. VA has a personal juristiction clause in the law. If you spam here, then you do business here, you come to court here.

Re:A death blow against Free Speech

[sqlrob]

Did you read the press release?

"Even after receiving formal notice of Morrison & Foerster's policy against spam, Etracks has sent at least 6,500 unsolicited email advertisements to Morrison & Foerster's California users."

So, my mail server I pay by the byte. Why should I pay for any spam, even the headers? If I'm forced to stop because of that, aren't they inhibiting my First Amendment rights?

Read the law. The mail:

Must be labeled advertisement

Must have valid contact information

Must not have forged headers

Must cease mailing upon request How is any of that against the First Amendment?

Re:Mofo.

[jonathanjo]

These are either the coolest lawyers in the world or most clueless.

They are cool, not clueless. Vince Flanders of webpagesthatsuck.com related how he (or an acquaintance) emailed them, in essence,

"Um, Mr. Morrison & Foerster, are you aware your URL, mofo.com, is, well, kindof obscene?"

Their PR person replied, basically, "Yes, we're aware of that. We're cultivating an image of a firm you don't want to mess with."

Given that, I will heed their advice and not mess with them. :)