Slashdot Mirror
Megaspammer Monsterhut Loses On Appeal
Werehatrack writes "Much jubilation was expressed in news.admin.net-abuse.email when it was learned that the long-running court battle between PaeTec and Monsterhut had reached a definitive conclusion on Friday with a New York appeals court finding in favor of PaeTec which finally allowed PaeTec to pull the plug on their least-loved customer's connectivity. PaeTec was actually somewhat restrained in its news announcement on its own website, simply noting that they had won and that they had disconnected Monsterhut."
I can't stand those morons who have to requote entire pages because they think they'll be Slashdotted. However, this is different. They linked to a RTF file, and I didn't notice, forcing IE and Word to load. Erk!
So, for all of the people who can't/don't want to read a RTF file.. here is the text of the first link:
(WARNING: It's really boring)
-- starts here --
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
PRESENT: PIGOTT, JR., P. J., GREEN, WISNER, SCUDDER, AND KEHOE, J. MonsterHut, INC., PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
PaeTec COMMUNICATIONS, INC., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
BOND, SCHOENECK & KING, LLP, SYRACUSE (ROBERT KIRCHNER OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. ALFONSO MARRA BAX, LEWISTON, FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.
Appeal from an order of Supreme Court, Niagara County (Lane, J.), entered August 27, 2001, which, inter alia, denied defendant's cross motion for summary judgment.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously modified on the law by denying plaintiff's motion, granting defendant's cross motion and granting judgment in favor of defendant as follows:
It is ADJUDGED and DECLARED that defendant is not in violation of the agreement and may terminate the agreement in response to plaintiff's sending of unsolicited, mass, commercial e-mail in breach of the agreement and as modified the order is affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Plaintiff, a marketing company that uses the Internet for advertising, entered into an agreement with defendant, an Internet service provider, to obtain Internet access services. The agreement incorporates defendant's Acceptable Use Policy, which provides that a subscriber, here, plaintiff, is in violation of the agreement if it engages in "spamming," defined as "[u]nsolicited, commercial mass e-mailing." Shortly after defendant began providing Internet access services to plaintiff, it notified plaintiff of its intention to terminate the agreement based upon plaintiff's spamming. Plaintiff commenced the instant action seeking declaratory relief and an injunction preventing defendant from terminating the agreement.
Supreme Court erred in granting plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction. Plaintiff failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits (see Technology for Measurement v Briggs, ___ AD2d ___ [decided Feb. 1, 2002]; Talley v Baker, 207 AD2d 967), irreparable harm if the preliminary injunction is not granted (see Technology for Measurement, ___ AD2d ___) or lack of an adequate remedy at law (see Matter of Camp Scatico v Columbia County Dept. of Health, 277 AD2d 689, 690). Contrary to defendant's contention, however, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in fixing the amount of the undertaking. The amount of the undertaking is reasonably related to the amount of damages defendant established that it might suffer "by reason of the injunction" (CPLR 6312 [b]; see Blueberries Gourmet v Aris Realty Corp., 255 AD2d 348, 350).
We further conclude that the court erred in denying defendant's cross motion for summary judgment seeking declaratory relief. Defendant established as a matter of law that the agreement prohibits spamming and that neither the two percent complaint limit contained in Addendum 1A, paragraphs 1.4 and 1.5 nor the 30-day notice and cure provision of paragraph 3 applies to spamming. Defendant further established as a matter of law that plaintiff had breached the agreement by engaging in spamming. Plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Its submissions in opposition to the cross motion amount to nothing more than "mere conclusions, expressions of hope or unsubstantiated allegations or assertions" that it will be able to prove that it did not engage in spamming (Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562).
We therefore modify the order by denying plaintiff's motion, granting defendant's cross motion and granting judgment in favor of defendant declaring that defendant is not in violation of the agreement and may terminate the agreement in response to plaintiff's sending of unsolicited, mass, commercial e-mail in breach of the agreement.
Entered: May 3, 2002 CARL M. DARNALL Clerk of the Court
mogorific carpentry experiments
Here is the original /. story
Essentially, here's the lowdown: PaeTec entered an ISP agreement with Monsterhut. PaeTec was informed that Monsterhut was a marketing service that used opt-in service only.
PaeTec soon found out how wrong they were represented. But, before PaeTec could pull the plug, Monsterhut went out and got a restraining order under the basis that their business would be "irrepreably harmed" if their ISP service was shut off.
Monsterhut judge shopped. Found a judge that would grant their injunction.
The problem in court lied over ambiguous language of what the actual acceptable use policy would be. THe terms read something like complaints by 2% of the mails... but, since MonsterHut claims it sends out millions of mails, there certainly wouldn't be any way that PaeTec could get complaints in that number.
Thankfully, the judge saw through the bullshit in this case.
--You will rephrase your request for me to go to hell. Goto statements are not acceptable programming constructs
In particular, look at the Advice for those they spam
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
Aol has been sued a few times. Once, becuase they're servers and incoming lines were so overwhelemed, people couldn't get on. A jusdge barred them from sending out new disks until they fixed that problem (I don't recall if that was a state vs AOL or class action vs AOL).
:). Too bad.
Another time was over billing (they rounded up and started teh clock at the first "AT" command). This was back when they were offering 20 free hours. The settlement was a huge chunk of cash for the lawyers (who initiated the suit, and one was the lead plaintiff), and 20 free hours for everyone who had been overbilled. Of course, by that time, they were routinely offering 1000 free hours and shortly switche over to the unlimited hours model, so the class action actually got shit.
Anyhow, unfortunately, spamming is "free speech", there generally aren't many laws against it, it's "interstate commerce", and we can't jurisdict over foreign soil (except Canada and Afghanistan
There's a decent, if outdated, summary of the case here .