Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Suing Spammers: What works?

Posted by Hemos on from the how-to-make-it-work dept.

jdedman4 writes "According to Junkbusters, various civil lawsuits against Spammers have used a number of theories, including the analogizing of junk email to junk faxes. As there have been a number of "IANAL, but . . ." discussions of late, I was curious as to which legal theories, if any, you all thought might work against spammers. Does the fact that a spammer deluges us all with automated commercial email subject him and his enterprise to personal jurisdiction in the courts of the fifty states? What torts do the spammers commit (intentional affliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy, false light, nuisance, et cetera?) Might an unfair trade practices lawsuit be brought? Is state or federal law a better weapon? Why haven't the legislatures been more active in this area? It seems like this is a pure public relations winner for a media-conscious political figure - everyone hates spammers. If this is such a widespread and pernicious menace(which of course it is), why hasn't some enterprising young plaintiff's attorney filed a class action suit? Is it that the spammers are essentially judgment proof, or that they are difficult to find, or all of the law is analagous but not directly helpful?"

3 of 29 comments (clear)

  1. Perhaps... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Most spammers are probably overseas in countries where they cannot be sued.

    Of course IAJAIAC. (I Am Just Another Ignorant AC.

    First post?

  2. Spam is also used to attack people by FireWhenRady · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I recently suffered from a spammers "joejob" where a spammer used my email address as a reply address for a spam.

    This meant that I received all the bounces, irate messages etc. to the tune of over 7000 bounces in the last week and a half. From the email headers of the bounced messages, I was able to trace the sender to Miami Florida using Ameritech ADSL, but that provides little proof.

    My real anger is over the people running open relays that aided and abetted this attack. Spam is not just junk email so they are not innocent bystanders. They are similar to someone who helps a bank robber escape from a crime scene. In this case it prevented me from receiving email for several days (my incoming mailbox was full) and created an immense amount of work sorting the bounces out from legitimate traffic (bounces for messages I wanted to know about).

    Has there been any precedent for suing owners of open relays or providers of abusive users?

    1. Re:Spam is also used to attack people by jdedman4 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I recently suffered from a spammers "joejob" where a spammer used my email address as a reply address for a spam.

      This, I think, is the actionable. I wonder why some enterprising young federal prosecutor does not chase this villain under the wire fraud statutes. The spammer, after all, committed a fraud and sent it across state boundaries, didn't he? If the feds can pursue college coaches who fax faked test scores from cheating athletes, can't they get these guys?

      You might also have a claim against him for false light, a tort at common law which I don't think is recognized here in Texas but is elsewhere. The example my law prof gave me was the following: Let's say you work at Company A, which provides you with a public mailbox from which to retrieve your memos, letters, magazines, brochures, et cetera. A colleague of yours, as a joke, signs you up for various pornographic magazines. Anyone who visits the mailbox area sees your mailbox stuffed with the porn, and reasonably believes that it is yours. Your colleague has put you in "false light," just as this spammer might have.

      Defamation seems analagous, but dubious under these facts.