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."
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.
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.
What are the addresses of these guys again? >:D
the defendant in question is not HQed in Virginia as our over zealous story poster would have us believe. They are in Florida.
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"
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.
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
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.
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
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
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.
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.