Slashdot Mirror
Spammers Sue Spamee
sebFlyte writes "In an interesting take on the law, some (alleged) spammers are suing some poor chap who got them blocked by ISPs due to the fact they kept sending him spam. According to Spamhaus the company doing the suing is on their books as spammer, and also as a spyware company... If this case goes the wrong way, things could get very sticky for anyone wanting to report spam."
My personal favorite, the "Atriks Personal Domain Owners with Credit Cards" Database. Unless you've been sleeping for the past 10 years, this means harvesting whois records (against the ToS) and using them to spam people. SpamHaus tidbits.
http://www.donarmstrong.com
This guy is a Computer Science and Engineering undergrad at Ohio State. It's wonderful that he could have influenced so much power over these people but I'm willing to bet he doesn't have much money otherwise.
Here's his site with the paypal link. There's some other goodies about the lawsuit and him on the site.
Direct away from face when opening.
You can even sign-up on their website. I would suggest being careful about that thought. According to their privacy statement, they can sell your name and e-mail address to (other?) spammers.
We may share some of your information such as name and e-mail address with third party sponsors.
I live in California, and see on a regular basis how true your comment really is...
Well yes, but so are you. It's called defamation of character. There can be an argument made that you willfully and knowingly sought to deceive others on the legality or ethical nature of Company C's actions by telling the ISP (Company B) that Company C was spamming you.
Defamation of character is one of those things that is just meant to be spiteful towards Person A. While Company C will probably lose, it's definitely enough to keep the case from getting thrown right out.
Person A may well have liability in this case. It depends. If you make a valid complaint to your landlord about your neighbor, and your landlord follows appropriate procedures and evicts your neighbor, you are both in the clear. If you make a false complaint, knowing it to be false, or with reckless disregard for the truth, and your landlord acts on that complaint, your neighbor would have a claim against you. Your landlord might or might not be in the clear depending on whether he followed appropriate procedures and whether it was reasonable of him to take your complaint to be valid. If you make a valid complaint but your landlord fails to follow appropriate procedures, then you should be in the clear but your landlord may be liable. The landlord-tenant example is actually not ideal as far as general tort law is concerned because landlord-tenant relations are often governed by special state or local laws.
One relevant cause of action is what is called "tortious interference". That is where A improperly interferes in the business relationship between B and C.
To take a parallel criminal example, suppose that gangster A hires hit man B to kill rival C. Surely you don't think that only hit man B has committed a crime? Gangster A is guilty at the very least of "solicitation of murder" and, depending on the jurisdiction, may be guilty of other crimes as well.
Don't forget their toll free number:
866-624-7008
> Anyone tracked down and named the lawyers yet?
Plaintiff:
Bosen and Springer, PLLC.
One New Hamsphire Ave. Suite 215
Portsmouth, NH 03801
A three-man operation. You can have a successful three-person law firm, but this combined with the fact that they spelled "Tortious" incorrectly in the complaint does tend to harm their credibility.
Defendant:
Jeremy A. Miller, Esq.
100 Hall Street; Suite 102
Concord, New Hampshire 03301
millerip.com
From the images on the defendant's website
Call em and let them know you don't like spam
Phone: 603-624-7008 | Fax: 603-624-9089
Toll Free: 866-624-7008
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
In 2002, in Australia, a spammer tried to sue the guy who reported them to the SPEWS blacklist. Case was dismissed, see the result here:
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_pagand
http://t3-v-mcnicol.org/"If we hit that bullseye, the rest of the dominoes should fall like a house of cards. Checkmate." - Zapp Brannigan
From an op-ed on our site dated 19 September 2004
/aka/ Atriks Inc. /aka/ Distributed Mail Corporation. According to a web site detailing the plight of Mr. Stuler, he is being sued by the company after he complained they had spammed him with unwanted advertisements. The company has filed a suit, alleging that Mr. Stuler has interfered with their normal business, causing them monetary and other harm.
A recent lawsuit has been filed against Jay Stuler by Brian Haberstroh
Virtually every web hosting company posts an "Acceptable Use Policy", in which spamming is prohibited, and sites determined to be spamming can lose their hosting contract. In addition, hosting providers provide an email address to report spam and other violations, generally an abuse@ email address. Hosting providers invite the public to submit alleged spam for investigation.
Providers in general do not terminate clients for a few complaints, but act when a number of complaints are received. We know of no provider that would terminate a contract after receiving complaints from one person.
It may well be that Mr. Stuler was singled out from other complainants due to his public participation and comments within NANAE, the Usenet Group devoted to email spam and related issues. While his comments may not of been favorable to the plaintiff, he has every right to state his position regarding spam in general and any alleged spam company. Whether the comments he made falls into the category of slander is up to a court to determine, should the case come to trial.
The broader issue is whether we as Internet users have the right to file complaints regarding spam, and the right to publicly participate in online discussions regarding the growing spam problem.
Suits such as this are often times filed to dissuade people from participating in anti spam activities or posting within news groups or discussion forums. The general term is SLAPP, Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, and is not legal in most U.S. States. It would be up to the court to determine if this particular suit falls within the guidelines of a SLAPP.
As long as Internet web hosts provide an abuse email address, we encourage users to continue to complain about alleged spamming operations, and allow the hosting providers to determine whether a company violates their Acceptable Use Policy, and deal with the company in a timely manner. Public participation on discussion boards and news groups is a fundamental part of online life, and we are opposed to the attempts by some to stife discussions of the issues.
Pete Carr Owner Chatmag.com
All you need to make it fair is "loser pays". If the losing party of a lawsuit had to pay the legal bills of both parties then there would be no more frivolous lawsuits. No one would sue unless they were sure of their case...
Tongue: A variety of meat, rarely served because it crosses the line between a cut of beef and a piece of dead cow.
I am not admitted to practice in New Hampshire (I don't even know where the suit was filed), and none of this is legal advice - that said...
;)
;)
"SLAPP" is an acronym for Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation. It basically means all of the lawsuits that big companies file against "the little guy" when "the little guy" exercises his First Amendment rights to protest in a "matter of public concern." A really good run-down of the reasoning behind Massachusetts' anti-SLAPP statute (only because that's the one I'm most familiar with) is here. Historically, these suits will often present as claims for defamation or "interference with contractual relations" for the statements made by the defendant.
There are certain legal tests that one must meet in order to have their "petitioning activity" qualify as being "protected" under the statute. Without more facts and knowledge of the analagous statute in NH (if there even is one), I wouldn't hazard a guess as to whether or not "contacting SpamHaus with information about a spammer" would fit. Might be a good case to bump up the appellate process and make new law in the jurisdiction, though.
The advantage of filing a Special Motion to Dismiss under these Anti-SLAPP statutes is that frequently, they allow for an immediate award of costs and attorney's fees, effectively stopping the frivolous lawsuit in its tracks and strongly discouraging companies from filing such suits in the future.
This guy should find a lawyer, explain ALL of the facts of the suit, and ask her to consider if this could be seen as a SLAPP suit, and how to proceed. Like I've said in other posts, most bar associations have lawyer referral services (LRS) that require member attorneys to give a free or cheap initial consultation. It sounds like this would be a great case for someone to take on.
Not all lawyers are bloodsucking bottom-feeders. Some are, and they give the rest of us a bad name. Just keep an open mind when you want a lawyer.
I can also say based on the fact that I work just down the street from these spammers. None of the building on 55 Bridge street are very big so the campany can't be very big either. Anyone have some good suggestions on how to annoy them in person without being arrested?
read the Writ of summons. Basically the guy is being sued because he a) called the guy a criminal, b) called his company a gang of spamming criminals c) co-erced (sp?) the companies ISP to can his connection knowing full well that requiring an internet connection was vital to the companies existence.
Now i know he spoke to the ISP reporting the problem, he would probably be pissed about the spam and complained vigerously and the co-ercing the isp to terminate the account thing would possibly be dismissed, but theres a totally different kettle of fish being involved if the namecalling turns out to be true...
Good luck to the guy, i wish he had kept a lid on his temper more, it might have made this thing rollin his favour a little more.
Life is like a box of chocolates, you never know when your gonna get food poisoning.
Actually its a federal crime to put something in a mailbox unless you are a US postal employee.