Californian Court Fines Spammers $2 Million

afra242 writes "The BBC News has reported that a Californian court has fined a marketing firm $2m for spamming via email. This judgement was the first anti-spam ruling and the marketing firm were fines for sending out millions of unsolicited e-mails telling people how to spam. We're getting closer..." Other readers point to coverage of the judgement from the Associated Press (via SFGate) and from Reuters (via Yahoo!).

Comments

It is in this case.

[www.sorehands.com]

This takes out one spammer and shows some of the people who spam or thinking about spamming that they may get hit with fines and penalties.

The money does get put into the state coffers. This is not like the RIAA who keeps the money for themselfs.

California open season on spammers starts Jan. 1

[Animats]

Unless Congress passes a pro-spam law that overrides it, open season on spammers starts January 1. This win was under the old law. The new law simply makes spam illegal:

• Business and Professions Code 17529.2.
  Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a person or entity may not do any of the following:

  (a) Initiate or advertise in an unsolicited commercial e-mail advertisement from California or advertise in an unsolicited commercial e-mail advertisement sent from California.

  (b) Initiate or advertise in an unsolicited commercial e-mail advertisement to a California electronic mail address, or advertise in an unsolicited commercial e-mail advertisement sent to a California electronic mail address.

The important part is in the details.

• Anybody in California can sue for $1000 per spam, up to $1,000,000 per incident. (Current law has a $50 limit. The new law makes it worthwhile to go to small claims court for a single spam.)
• You can sue in small claims court for up to $10,000.
• You can sue the advertiser, the "beneficiary" of the spam. So you find out where the money goes, and go after them.
• If the spammer, the advertiser, or the recipient is in Californa, you can sue.
• ISPs can sue.
• Class actions are allowed.
• There's a general provision in California law that anyone can "act as the attorney general" to enforce consumer laws in court, and that applies here.

The key here is that you can go after the advertiser, not the spammer. You can find the advertiser by following the money. If you put in a credit card number, where does the transaction come out?

Using an "internet billing service" like iBill won't help. They're actually the "merchant" in such cases. iBill is going to be involved in many spam lawsuits.

The Direct Marketing Association is frantically lobbying Congress to override this before it goes into effect. S.877, which just passed the Senate, would kill the California law and replace it with a weaker one. But the House hasn't acted. Watch for any last-minute action at the end of the session.