Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

First Lawsuit Against Cell-Phone Spammers

Posted by timothy on from the go-cat-go dept.

BMcWilliams writes "The PR machine at Verizon Wireless hasn't made any noise about this yet, but the carrier last month filed a lawsuit against some Rhode Island spammers who targeted its cell phone customers with over four million text-message ads for ephedra, penis pills, mortgages, etc. The timing of the lawsuit is interesting, given that the FCC is in the process of hammering out rules governing cell-phone spam. I am told the Verizon litigation is the first of its kind in the USA. My story about the lawsuit, and a copy of Verizon Wireless' complaint, are available here."

2 of 122 comments (clear)

  1. Cell Phone Spam by thesuperbigfrog · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Verizon is definitely doing the right thing here.

    Although they are not my carrier, I hope that other carriers will take notice and support them on this issue.

    No one should ever have to pay for advertising unless without their consent. If you want to spam me then get my permission and pay me for it. If I agree then pay for part of my bill, not just the cost to send your message, but more so that my service is cheaper.

    --
    42
  2. SMS: spammer pays by Jadrano · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No, as far as I know, SMS spam is easier to block (by the network operators, not by the individual users) than e-mail spam.

    The most important point here is that sending SMSs costs something (lower prices for bulk sending of SMS messages are offered, but the typical spammer's business model still won't work, even if they just have to pay ~5 cents per message, it's too expensive for spamming). Then, the fact that money has to be paid also helps identifying the source (as far as I know, the identification for billing cannot be forged, so the telephone companies can find out who spammed).

    In many European countries, SMS has become absolutely indispensable (and a major source of profit for the telephone companies). I read that in the US (at least under certain circumstances) the recipient rather than the sender has to pay for SMS messages - that's really an idiotic arrangement. I think Americans should rather look how SMS has been implemented in other countries than contemplating to give it up and missing the huge advantages it offers (being able to deliver a message to someone who is too busy to pick up a phone, sending telephone numbers etc.).

    I have been using SMS for many years (in Switzerland) and I don't think I have ever received SMS spam.