Slashdot Mirror


$1 Billion Awarded in Lawsuit Against Spammers

phoric writes "In what is believed the be the largest federal judgement in history against spammers, an ISP from eastern Iowa was awarded a $1 billion dollar judgement against three mass-mailing companies, which were said to be sending up to 10 million e-mail messages per day to the small internet provider."

19 of 194 comments (clear)

  1. Why them, not me? by elh_inny · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Will they share, after all I am a vicitm as well?

    1. Re:Why them, not me? by eneville · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The money _SHOULD_ go towards projects like Spamcop et al.

      As someone else just mentioned its the ISP who sues and wins, part of the money will go towards damages involved in catching the nasty people.

      The winning ISPs will probably now get a torrent of mail heading their way, which probably futher anoys their customers, but I bet they have tighter logging in place!

    2. Re:Why them, not me? by njcoder · · Score: 4, Funny
      "You ought to have to pass a test to be a legislator, judge, or even a damn dog catcher."

      What the hell did dog catchers ever do to you that you would lump them in the same category!?!?!?!

    3. Re:Why them, not me? by Fishstick · · Score: 5, Insightful

      >You ought to have to pass a test to be a legislator, judge,

      yes. it's called an election

      --

      There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
      Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.

  2. Guarenteed? by Renraku · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'll believe it when I see it. Spammers have a way of packing up and vanishing from the face of the earth over night.

    --
    Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
  3. Wow by Stevyn · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Kramer is unlikely to ever collect the large judgment, which was made possible through an Iowa law that allows plaintiffs to claim damages of $10 per spam message, said his attorney, Kelly O. Wallace of Atlanta.

    That's a lot of money per email. When I saw the headline, I figured most of the money came from putative damages, but the article didn't mention it. Instead they were able to claim the amount from actual damages. This leads me to think that this law might not stick around for a while. It was also interesting that no lawyers were present for the trial.

  4. Imagine by jstrain · · Score: 3, Funny

    all the V14GR4, fake Rolex watches, and mortgage refinances he can buy now!

  5. Sadly.... by ralinx · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...the ISP was contacted about the money through an email with the subject "YOU HAVE JUST WON 1 BILLION DOLLARS!!!" which they obviously deleted, and now they can't receive their money.

  6. $1 billion--wowzers! by Ph33r+th3+g(O)at · · Score: 5, Funny
    Based on current advertised prices (rounded to nearest unit, exclusive of shipping and handling), that's:
    --
    I too have felt the cold finger of injustice.
    1. Re:$1 billion--wowzers! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Or 50 euro!

  7. Sting? by tomstdenis · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Why not just work with credit card merchants. Many of these spams are for crap you can buy with a credit card.

    So have police [or a taskforce] use specially marked cards [that otherwise appear like a credit card to the spammer]. Then when the merchant puts the transaction through their details are sent back to the task force.

    e.g.

    1. Get spam
    2. Go there, buy shit
    3. They try to collect with merchant
    4. They then get a knock on the door a day later from the FBI or something.

    Spammers already don't accept money orders and cheques [for obvious reasons] so let's make them afraid of credit cards as well.

    And before anyone thinks this is entrapment step #1 takes care of that. They're selling to you without solicitation. ...

    Aside from that I also really don't understand why spammers spam. I mean I don't know what a r0llex is, can't use any v1@gra and really can't afford a hom3 l0@n at the moment. So why bother emailing me over and over and over again.

    I'm sure if I wanted herbal penis meds I'd already be in business transaction with the spammer anyways.

    Oh well, can always just stop using email I guess.

    Tom

    --
    Someday, I'll have a real sig.
  8. Re:Slippery Slope by jcr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You seem to be under the misapprehension that spamming is a first-amendment issue. It's not, and has never been a free-speech issue, it has always been a property rights issue. Spammers make their money by stealing service from millions of people.

    Ralsky and the rest of his ilk are free to say whatever they want to say, but that does NOT include a right to use my computer/router/etc. to convey their message.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  9. Re:Okay, but now let's look at the big picture by AndroidCat · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Lots of little spammers pop up, but those are easier to deal with. These three were from near the top of the spammer "food" chain. ($700M against Amp Dollar aka ROKSO listed Daniel Walls is a spam partner/accomplice of Alan Ralsky.) That and that RICO was used has got to be worrying to all the kings, queens, princes and popes of spam.

    A lot of spam might come from outside the US, but it's usually at the direction of people in the US. (I'll bet that these people used a lot of out-sourced web sites in China and such, but the money trail led back to the US.)

    --
    One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  10. Let's don't blame the victim here by gadlaw · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This argument reminds me of arguments like 'she asked for it' or 'well, you should have locked your doors'. Blaming the victim for not doing everything humanly possible to prevent the crime against them is one step away from anarchy. And make no mistake, this was a crime as defined by the law. The spammers thought that they had a small company that wouldn't and couldn't fight back. The spammers thought they would get away with it as they have always done. In this case the victim fought back. Shame on the spammers and hooray for the victim.

    --
    Enjoy your Karma, after all you earned it. Feel your Karma Joe, feel it burn.
  11. more needs to be done by harryoyster · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The real problem is that more people need to make a bigger effort against spam. The US fines and stuff imposed on spammers doesnt really make that much of a difference to SPAM world wide. The majority of my spam is now non-us based for the first time in years. What can we do.. stop routing to those ISPs that have problems. revoke entire ranges of IPs. it will work.. make everyone on that ISP suffer will make the ISP change thier policy very very fast.

    --
    Got a question about UNIX ask it here : Unix/xBSD Forum
  12. Florida bankruptcy laws? by AndroidCat · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Some of these spammers were in Florida, and I know that Florida has laws that let you keep large personal assets like houses even in bankruptcy. (Strange how many scam artists move to Florida.) Does it matter that the judgement was from a federal court?

    The question is probably moot since the spammers vanished before the case started. (They didn't didn't even send lawyers to the court.)

    --
    One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  13. Re:Guaranteed? by triclipse · · Score: 5, Informative
    Minimum due process standards require that a person be served with a summons and complaint before a default judgment - or any other kind of judgment - can be entered against a party.

    Whether they were personally served or not is a different question. However, personal service is not required. They can even be "served" with the summons and complaint by publication in a newspaper if diligent attempts at personal service have been made.

    Lack of personal service may make it easier for them to set aside the default judgment, but I doubt they will show up in court to make the proper motions.

    --
    No Inflation Taxation without Representation
  14. $1 billion vs $2.6 million by jmcmunn · · Score: 3, Insightful


    Ok, so the spammers have to pay $1 billion for what they did. On the other hand Diebold only had to pay $2.6 million for writing bad voting software that potentially ruined the future of the country by allowing for voting results to be hacked?

    There's something wrong with the way our legal system works, and more importantly this shows that people don't value their right to vote nearly enough. Spam seems so terrible to people because it annoys them on a daily basis, and yet no one is up in arms about their freedom to vote being insecure.

    Come on people get the priorities straight...afterall there's decent antispam software out there, and even a small ISP can block people from sending spam through their servers if they are properly patched and up to date on security realeses. Damn, I only wish some spammers would take advantage of any holes I have now, then I could sue and be rich forever.

  15. Re:Sting? I tried it ... by triclipse · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I did something similar to this, but put no money out. I responded to one of those mortgage emails (the subject line had something like "We owe you $60001" and went on to say something like, "Your mortgage application is approved, click here for final details ..." I am confident you have seen this species of spam once or twice :-)

    I followed the link and put in a fake name - a name I have never used anywhere else - but provided them with my real office phone number. Because it dealt with mortgages, I knew someone who had sufficient ties to my jurisdiction would respond if they wanted to sell me a mortgage.

    I had over 40 fricking banks and mortgage brokers call me using that fake name! So what did I do? I sued the bastards.

    Now, whether or not I believe them when they say that they didn't know that their leads were generated by spam, the judge in this particular case (who didn't know very much at all about the technology or economics of spam) said that, as a matter of law, they were not liable under my state's spam laws. However, before they were dismissed from the case, I was able, through discovery, to learn where they purchased those leads. So although I have dismissed the banks and brokers, I have named as defendants the companies who sold them the leads (which, I was surprised to learn, were also in my jurisdiction). My plan is to trace that fake name all the way back to the company that first sold it to somebody else.

    In seeing how much money these banks and brokers pay for leads, it is understandable why spammers take the risk of a judgment such as the one in this Iowa case - they are making money hand over fist!

    --
    No Inflation Taxation without Representation