Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Spammers Sue Spam Victim For $4 Million

Posted by Zonk on from the that's-a-lot-of-pork dept.

fronck writes "Self-declared anti-spammer Mark Mumma, a web hosting and email service provider, has apparently been sued for just under $4 million by cruise.com and their parent company Omega World Travel after they were ordered to stop sending him emails and comply with Oklahoma's CAN-SPAM act. Mumma intends to see the trial through court and meanwhile the spam continues unabated. More insight available at Ars Technica."

13 of 435 comments (clear)

  1. Counter Suit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As the spammers have clearly identified themselves and their victim should have logs clearly showing their abuse he should counter sue them.

    They have kindly set the level for the quantum of damages.

  2. Whats the rest of the story? by Wanderer1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I find it hard to believe that there isn't another side to this tale.

    That said, if the company *IS* prosecuting on those grounds, an out of court settlement involving some guys named Vinny is probably at least as effective.

    W

    1. Re:Whats the rest of the story? by nodwick · · Score: 5, Insightful
      From TFA:
      A key issue in the matter is the supposed opt-in nature of the list in question. Mumma's argument is that he never opted-in, so he shouldn't have to opt-out. Furthermore, he holds that opting-out only increases the chance of receiving more spam. This makes Mumma appear somewhat belligerent, and it doesn't help that his demands for a settlement for over $6,000 were accompanied by veiled threats regarding Google "caching" his complaint page. Furthermore, the fact that his site also suggested "setting a trap" to nail spammers (PDF of page at the time) make him looks lawsuit happy, although it isn't clear that this means anything other than documenting one's moves closely.
      Of course, as the article points out, none of this is actually illegal, even if it does make the victim look a bit less like a white knight. The strangest part of this whole affair is that spamming ultimately originates as a form of advertising. Here's someone who is patently not interested in the company's product, and has made a legal request under state law for them to stop sending him ads. Instead of complying, the company is now going to try to sue his pants off to show him who's boss. Supposing in some bizarro world they win, and are granted permission to keep sending him ads? I bet he's going to be really eager to buy things from them now ...
    2. Re:Whats the rest of the story? by nine-times · · Score: 5, Insightful
      The strangest part of this whole affair is that spamming ultimately originates as a form of advertising. Here's someone who is patently not interested in the company's product, and has made a legal request under state law for them to stop sending him ads. Instead of complying, the company is now going to try to sue his pants off to show him who's boss. Supposing in some bizarro world they win, and are granted permission to keep sending him ads? I bet he's going to be really eager to buy things from them now ...

      I believe at least part of the problem (though I may be wrong in this case) is that the spammers who send the advertising and the people who are selling the product are two different companies. In a sense, the spammers have no financial interest in you actually buying the product, other than in that it maintains the image of spam as an effective advertising medium.

      Or even when they are the same company, it seems that companies who advertise through spam aren't relying on the inherent good-quality of their product for sales.

      So when it comes to legal action, the spammers aren't so worried about making the product look bad, or even making spam look bad (after all, it already looks about as bad as it's going to). What they're more worried about is their right to continue spamming.

    3. Re:Whats the rest of the story? by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Of course, as the article points out, none of this is actually illegal, even if it does make the victim look a bit less like a white knight

      I once recieved an abusive letter (Pinned under the windsheild wiper of my car) from another tenant in the same building where had just moved in. They were complaining that I was parkign in a spot that they had rights to and were paying for and which happened to be the best spot available. I returned a very polite letter that I made sure was ice cold and factual outlining that the parking spaces were numbered as where the apartments and that according to my rental agreement this parking spot Nr. X belongded to my aparment Nr. X and that I was in fact paying for it. There were no insults, no abuse and no gloating in the letter, I just explained that they were in fact squattin on my parking spot, not the other way around. I never heard from them again. The the moral of the story is that the biggest mistake you can make is to get carried away in an Oh, goody, I'm in the right... Now lets REALLY chew them out! type frenzy. Alot of people end up making the mistake of hurting their own case by getting abusive or even insulting and thus ruin their position.

      --
      Only to idiots, are orders laws.
      -- Henning von Tresckow
  3. You've missed the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They sue people to get them to give up. A lot of people don't have the time, money and/or will to fight someone in court, so they say "Sorry!" and go away.

  4. Slashdot should hire the Ars people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They actually write real summaries that explain things. It's quite amazing compared to what we get here at Slashdot. Just go read their story and compare.

  5. Only in the US by Kombat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In the US, you can sue for anything at all, and this is what happenes when a company with money picks on someone who doesn't. Hmm.. who does this remind us of? ??AA anyone? The case would be thrown out of court in a heartbeat, but first it has to get there, and that means that Mark Mumma will first have to hire a lawyer (which he already has, according to TFA).

    This is just another symptom of the twisted legal system that has been allowed to evolve in the US. When will legislators realize that it's time for serious legal reforms to end these types of frivolous, baseless lawsuits that are intended only to intimidate and harass?

    --
    Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
    1. Re:Only in the US by rsd-17 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      When will legislators realize that it's time for serious legal reforms to end these types of frivolous, baseless lawsuits that are intended only to intimidate and harass?

      Unfortunately many of the legislators are lawyers. It's not in their interest for this state of affairs to end.

  6. Re:Wow, just wow. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Just like the judge smacked down the frivolous SCO lawsuit?

    Just like the judge smacked down the suit against Oreo cookies making people fat?

  7. Re:What a great ad! by strider44 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    must be an "any publicity is good publicity" because all it's telling me is to boycott cruise.com, and there are a lot of fellow slashdotters who would feel the same.

  8. Re:America, land of the free...lawsuit by Kwil · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You assume that

    A) The corporation manages to live through the lawsuit to begin with, and

    B) They're not sued by a front corporation that declares bankruptcy, folds up, and disappears.

    --

    That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze

  9. Re:Standard SLAPP suit by nenolod · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That's irrelevant. The fact that the individuals violated Oklahoma's anti spam law, means that they are liable for that, and that case would still be litigated in Oklahoma.

    This lawsuit is more intended to make the owners of cruise.com appear to be victimized, that's all there is to it. It's a fairly common move in litigation of this nature, and it rarely works out in the spammer's favour. Usually these things get dismissed from court.