Slashdot Mirror


AOL Spam Case Dismissed Over Jurisdiction Problem

An anonymous reader submits "AOL's suit against several Florida-based spammers has been dismissed by a federal judge in Virginia. The judge said the case was tossed because AOL failed to show that Virginia had jurisdiction over the case Apparently being HQ'd in VA and spamming VA residents isn't enough to sue the bastards in Virginia. AOL plans to appeal."

32 comments

  1. good by BigBir3d · · Score: 1

    Nice to see that there is a burden of proof, even for a major corp like AOL/TW.

    It is too bad that AOL/TW is having to re-do the work, but things need to be done the right way.

    1. Re:good by Nasarius · · Score: 1, Insightful

      This isn't about burden of proof at all. This is simply about which court has the authority to deal with the case.

      --
      LOAD "SIG",8,1
    2. Re:good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the CAN-SPAM act is a federal law, correct? So uh... it would be under the authority of like... a federal.. uh.. you know... court.

    3. Re:good by the+argonaut · · Score: 2, Interesting

      1. I don't think they were suing under CAN-SPAM (I highly doubt they could have gotten a case in that quickly after it was signed). I believe it was a state law they were suing under.

      2. Federal courts have the same (personal) jurisdiction as the state they are in. So even if they were suing under a federal law (or if the damages were over $75,000 and citizenship is diverse (which it is)), they would have to bring suit in federal court in a state that has personal jurisdiction over them, which in this case would definitely be Florida, and apparently not Virginia.

      --
      fuck you.
    4. Re:good by BigBir3d · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not exactly. AOL/TW has to prove that it is worthwhile to be in the court system, as well as being in the proper jurisdiction. VA is the proper court, if AOL/TW had their ducks in a row. They didn't, and the judge called them on it. Now thay have to start over. I would have guessed something more like "bring me more proof by March 1st 2004" or something like.

  2. Remember Amateur Action? by Bryant · · Score: 5, Informative

    If you don't, refresh your memory here. OK? Good.

    Basically, a Tennessee postal inspector brought charges against a BBS in San Jose in a Tennessee court, and managed to get the BBS shut down because it violated Tennessee community standards. This, despite the fact that the BBS was located on the other side of the country. There was a lot of outrage at the time, for obvious reasons -- you don't want to hold an Internet site to the most restrictive standards found anywhere in the world.

    It seems to me that this AOL thing is just about the same. Indict the spammers in their home state; that's where they're located. It would be nice to hold them to the most restrictive standards possible, but it would also be kind of unfair.

    1. Re:Remember Amateur Action? by iamweezman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The difference here is that spammers sent and their content to Virginia citizens. Their is a law in Virginia forbidding that specific type of business in Virginia.

      Someone in Tennessee would have to violate their community standards to seek out the content on the BBS. Those in Virginia didn't have that option.

    2. Re:Remember Amateur Action? by Bryant · · Score: 1

      You can't rely on "seeking out" as a legal precedent. Am I seeking out goatse if I click on someone's clever redirection link by accident?

    3. Re:Remember Amateur Action? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, but at least you can opt out in the future. Same with the BBS - If you go there (of your own volition), and you find that you don't like what you see, then don't come back.

      With spam, you don't get the luxury of future avoidance.

    4. Re:Remember Amateur Action? by ca1v1n · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There's a stark difference between a service that may be requested from out of state and something that is actively pushed to that state. The case of the Tennessee postal inspector sounds like a load of BS, and I bet the BBS would have won if they'd appealed. AOL is going after a company based in Florida that is doing business (possibly illegally or injuriously) in Virginia. There is an enormous body of caselaw supporting this, so I would be quite surprised if they lost their appeal.

    5. Re:Remember Amateur Action? by Fnkmaster · · Score: 1
      Fortunately, you are not a judge. There is a substantial body of case law in most states on what constitutes doing business in those states, and how much active involvement is required to establish personal jurisdiction over an issue.


      There are what are called "long arm" statutes in most states that let states take jurisdiction under certain circumstances - like a foreign (i.e. out-of-state) business entity doing transactions in a state. However, just sending email, even spam doesn't count as that. Some states include a clause in their long-arm statute like "causing tortious injury" in the state if you regularly solicit business in the state. So presumably, the burden would be on the prosecution to show that they did more than just send spam (and on a regular basis), they also caused damage that was tort-worthy by their sending of spam (I'm guessing here since I don't know Virginia's specific laws).


      Just calling people up or sending email to them, or sending snail mail, no matter how offensive any of it may be to you, is itself justification for that state asserting personal jurisdiction. Just imagine the mess that would occur if your (legitimate) business could be taken to court pretty much anywhere where the laws disfavored you enough that some litigious fuckhead thought he could win some arbitrary case against you. It's hard enough for most legitimate businesses to keep in the letter of all their state and local laws all the time - if you had to worry about the random legislation in all 50 states, it would be crazy. Just because these people are spammers and scumbags doesn't mean we can change the rules of jurisdiction because we want to fuck them over. Oh yeah, IANAL so don't take this as literal description of the law.

  3. I live in Florida... by pilot1 · · Score: 1

    What are the addresses of these guys again? >:D

    1. Re:I live in Florida... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      we could always pull a snail-mail-ddos on them, like we did previously to a spammer from (iirc) Michigan. check bruce schneir's crypto-gram from several months ago for details.....

  4. VA ? by kayen_telva · · Score: 1

    the defendant in question is not HQed in Virginia as our over zealous story poster would have us believe. They are in Florida.

    1. Re:VA ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      dear genius,

      the submitter clearly stated "Florida-based spammers." clearly, they would be the defendant in an "anti-spam" lawsuit filed by AOL.

      HQ'd in Virginia is AOL, which is as well-known as the significance of the state of WA to Microsoft.

      -ac

    2. Re:VA ? by jimi1283 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Wrong entirely over. You misunderstand the post. AOL is HQ'd in VA, and they are suing on behalf of VA residents who were spammed. The post states that the spammers are based in Florida. That is what the dispute is about, whether the case should be tried in Virginia or Florida.

  5. The judge is a retard. by jamehec · · Score: 1

    I'm in Virginia. I sued people from out of state. I've won. I did all that in a Virginia state court.

    Someone should explain the "long arm" concept of law to hizzoner real fast.

    As much as I hate AOL, they did have a case to file in State court. My guess is that the judge just didn't wanna deal with it.

    --
    This post made with the Dvorak layout.
    "Friends don't let friends use QWERTY"
    1. Re:The judge is a retard. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My guess is that AOL didn't show/claim that anyone in Virginia received spam. The judge said that the spammers were not trying to do business in Viriginia, only sending mail through it. AOL plans to amend documents they send to the court. I bet they can fix this problem.

    2. Re:The judge is a retard. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      from article:

      United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia [emphasis added]

      that seems to indicate the case was in federal court, not state court as you imply. your case involving a suit in state court has little-to-no bearing.

    3. Re:The judge is a retard. by the+argonaut · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm in Virginia. I sued people from out of state. I've won. I did all that in a Virginia state court.

      So you either tagged them instate, they were doing business in Virginia, they consented to jurisdiction in VA, or they had a bad lawyer?

      Someone should explain the "long arm" concept of law to hizzoner real fast.

      Well, from what I gathered from the article and from my own understanding it sounds to me like he gets it. The spammers don't live in VA and did not purposely avail themselves of doing business in VA, so they didn't meet the threshold for establishing personal jurisdiction, at least according to the judge. Maybe if he had specific knowledge that the crap he was sending out was headed for Virginia it might be different.

      As much as I hate AOL, they did have a case to file in State court. My guess is that the judge just didn't wanna deal with it.

      As somebody else noted, it was filed in Federal court and not state court, which in the context of why the case was dismissed is meaningless: the geographical boundaries for the federal district courts is the same as for the state that they are located in. My guess is the judge didn't want to try a case that in his esteemed opinion would get overturned later.

      --
      fuck you.
  6. Re:Jurisdiction? by the+argonaut · · Score: 1

    Out of jusrisdiction indeed!

    Indeed it is. Personal jurisdiction is based on the domicile of the defendant, not the plaintiff. "As a violation of State and Federal laws" denotes what courts have subject matter jurisdiction. You need to have both. So re-file in a state or federal court in Florida

    --
    fuck you.
  7. Ok, so that means its not a state issue by nurb432 · · Score: 0

    Just file your case in federal court.. its related to interstate trade anyway.. *across* state boundaries..

    So why would you file suit in state x in the first place? Getting the Feds involved might help matters, as they have more teeth anyway.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:Ok, so that means its not a state issue by the+argonaut · · Score: 1

      The case was filed in a federal court. Federal courts have the same personal jurisdiction issues that state courts have, and that's what the court was ruling on.

      Whether you can file in federal or state court in this case is irrelevant to the fact that it's related to interstate trade. Federal courts can here cases they have subject matter jurisdiction over (i.e., federal laws) or where they have diversity of citizenship (people or corporations domiciled in different states) and the amount of damages claimed is over $75,000. You can bring a suit under a state law in federal court if the court has jurisdiction because of diversity (always), or if the suit involves claims under both state and federal law (sometimes). Also, it's not a federal law they are suing under, it's a state law. The interstate trade issue if anything brings up issues whether VA can pass a law like this.*

      * requisite disclaimer, IANAL, IAAL[aw]S[tudent] (1L). But I'm pretty sure this is correct...

      --
      fuck you.
  8. Well, DUH! by Lord+Kano · · Score: 0

    The judge said the case was tossed because AOL failed to show that Virginia had jurisdiction over the case Apparently being HQ'd in VA and spamming VA residents isn't enough to sue the bastards in Virginia. AOL plans to appeal.

    You can't sue someone under the laws of one state for actions committed in another. It's common sense. I'm a resident of Pennsylvania. I can't be compelled to comply with laws that are enacted by Ohio or New York.

    LK

    --
    "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    1. Re:Well, DUH! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, as a resident of Pennsylvania, you are still required to comply with Ohio law if you are sending alcohol to an Ohio resident. In this case, Florida residents were sending spam to machines in Virginia, so it makes sense.

    2. Re:Well, DUH! by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      Actually, as a resident of Pennsylvania, you are still required to comply with Ohio law if you are sending alcohol to an Ohio resident.

      As long as I do not go into Ohio, I can thumb my nose at all of its laws.

      If I violate Pennsylvania law at the same time that I violate Ohio law, I would have to face the justice of my state, but Ohio would have no claim or standing to prosecute me.

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    3. Re:Well, DUH! by phorm · · Score: 1

      Of course you can, so long as your actions are targetted at a member of that other state. For example, if state X and state Y had different legal ages for alcohol consumption (this occurs in Canadian provinces, not sure if any states are 21), and you knowingly sent a minor in state "X" booze, you might be charged across states.

  9. The Judge is indeed moronic by FreeUser · · Score: 1

    Well, from what I gathered from the article and from my own understanding it sounds to me like he gets it. The spammers don't live in VA and did not purposely avail themselves of doing business in VA, so they didn't meet the threshold for establishing personal jurisdiction, at least according to the judge. Maybe if he had specific knowledge that the crap he was sending out was headed for Virginia it might be different.

    They guy sent millions of SPAM to people all over the world. He couldn't reasonably expect not to be sending some SPAM to virginia, where in fact it is banned. Furthermore, it is his responsibility to know where he is conducting his business (the servers are located in VA, that is trivial to find out, and it was the SPAMmers responsibility as a businessman to ascertain that).

    It is really quite stunning that ignorance has been held up by a federal judge as a legitimate defense, particularly in a case where ignorance of ones own bsuiness is (a) almost certainly feigned and (b) if true, a sign of negligence, not innocence.

    Either way, the fact remains that the SPAMmer sent SPAM to VA residents in violation of VA law, and said SPAM originated from servers located in VA. If that isn't enough to determine that the jurisdiction is in fact in VA, then no law regarding the Internet, anywhere, is enforcable. While the libertarians might relish this thought, I don't think such a position is going to be tenable for very long. I would be surprised if AOL didn't win on appeal.

    --
    The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
    1. Re:The Judge is indeed moronic by cabotage · · Score: 1

      The spammers in the lawsuit were not dismissed. The technicians that operated the computers in Florida were dismissed. The technicians did not send any spam and did not take any actions in or aimed at Virginia.

  10. Fault in the system by Klatoo55 · · Score: 1

    This illustrates a growing inadequacy in our laws to cover internet crime. The widespread nature of the internet necessitates a new legal approach to maintain consistant rulings and treatment.

    --
    ------- "A true friend stabs you in the front." -Eliot
  11. The SPAMMERS were not dismissed!! by cabotage · · Score: 1

    The spammers in the lawsuit were not dismissed. The technicians that operated the computers in Florida were dismissed. The technicians did not send any spam and did not take any actions in, or aimed at, Virginia. The guys who sent the spam are still listed on the lawsuit, and are still being prosecuted in Virginia.

    The press has done a great job of making a fool of AOL, but they did so by leaving out some very important details about the case.