Slashdot Mirror
Suing Spammers: What works?
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?"
Outright theft has always been my favorite course of thought. They are stealing my bandwidth, my cpu cycles, my disk space. Not a big deal for one message, but when it comprises 30% of mail traffic, then that means my operating expense is 30% hire. This is real money they are stealing from me. If they paid me, or anyone (post office) to accept it, fine, thats different. The main reason spam needs to be made illegal is because it is outright theft.