Slashdot Mirror
Spammer Sued Under EU Law
IngramJames writes "A British businessman has successfully sued a company who sent him a spam email. The case was settled out of court, so is not binding, but it's promising that the spammers had to cough up £300 for a single email! It's being reported (in a much more readable way) on The Register and the BBC." From the BBC article: "Three years ago the EU passed an anti-spam law, the directive on privacy and telecommunications, which gave individuals the right to fight the growing tide of unwanted e-mail by allowing them to claim damages."
Can't wait to be able to sue spammers from here in Pittsburgh. There isn't much we can do, other than track spam, and ask them to stop. Lots of spam that I see comes from Russia, or China, and there isn't much that can be done about it. THe biggest majority of those I get are zipfile attachments with some bogus message -- viruses or whatnot. I'd like a procmail script that turns each spam message into a unique lawsuit -- any takers?
Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.
This is the kind of thing I like to see. It's time we start holding some of these companies who use spam, spyware, adware, etc. responsible. I hope Texas' suit against Sony is successful, too.
How much will it cost you in:
:(
Court fees?
Lost wages from taking days off of work to go to court?
Lawyer's fees? (Well, you can save on that by getting a season of Law and Order on DVD, I guess...)
Great in principle, but I fear the day is theirs
If you'd RTFA, you'd see that this was an out of court settlement. The guy didn't win in court, he settled.
--You will rephrase your request for me to go to hell. Goto statements are not acceptable programming constructs
£300 worth of all-natural herbal Viagra?
One of the lessons of history is that nothing is often a good thing to do and always a clever thing to say. - Will Duran
From the Register Article: ...
Roberts, who runs his own Internet business as well as the Jersey and Guernsey country code domains, used his legal know-how to apply EU legislation to a UK company, Media Logistics.
It is believed to be the first time the legislation has been used in the UK, and could open the doors for thousands of other cases.
Back in August, Roberts received several marketing emails from Media Logistics. They were just a few of the many thousands that he and every Internet user receive each year, except that Mr Roberts tracked the email back to the company using its IP address.
Recognising that as a UK company it came under the EU law, he sent a letter demanding an apology, damages and the name of the company that had given Media Logistics his email address. The company apologised but refused his two other requests.
Unfortunately for the company, Roberts, 37, is a recognised internet expert and was studying for a law degree, which he has just been awarded...
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_
This somewhat disturbs me. Although I hate spam as much as the next guy, how bad would it be if someone could just fill out some forms and collect $500 from a company that sent a supposedly "unwanted" email?
I realize that it's not quite that simple, but once a legal precedent is set, how far could someone take this? Again, with precedent, one could theoretically bankrupt a company who didn't bother to use a reputable email ad agency, which raises another interesting question: Who's really at fault here? Most large corporations don't send out their own solicitations, but they do provide marching orders to do so. So in a case like this, are they at fault, or is the company that actually sent the spam?
I have not seen any change in the level of spam...except maybe that it has increased. With all the laws, lawsuits, etc I still get 1000 spams a day. Spam protection works, but is not perfect. I have gotten to the point where I have hidden email accounts that are receive only if I know you status. Joel
What's more, it works. I was involved in a case in which a company sued a friend claiming payment for work they had not, in fact, done. Although we screwed up mildly on the paperwork the judge in the case decided that did not matter and gave judgement in our favor. The other side walked out feeling very upset, but realised the cost of going to a higher court to try again would be much greater than the amount claimed. So they gave up.
Pining for the fjords
You can only sue in the small claim court for actual damages suffered. They generally hold that wasting your time is not claimable as damages - actions such as this will only succeed if you can show that you have lost time in the course of a buisness and then suffered a financial cost. Also you generally cannot set a precedent in the small claims court, even if you do win. For those interested further the website for the court is www.moneyclaim.gov.uk
How will the male enhancement industry survive now? I dont think that anyone actually wants those stupid emails in their mailbox, so they will have to try another marketing scheme.
Too bad, so sad.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
...for companies that buy Databases for their mass email campaigns. The only companies that I know of that do this have low success rates, and a very irate Database.
Court fees?
30 pounds, paid by spammer
Lost wages from taking days off of work to go to court?
Owns is own business
Lawyer's fees?
He didn't hire one
I'm more curious as to how you quantify "damages" caused by spamming. Three hundred pounds may be logical limit - small claims - but what's keeping someone from suing for more?
The question must be asked:
Did the amount of time and energy spent on this case roughly equate with the settlement?
I am all for suing spammers, but let's make it real money, say £300,000.00?
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
The EU sues everyone. I'll be impressed when someone in China gets their ass sued for spamming.
Need more info for this exciting new European business opportunity :-
1) Receive spam
2) Sue the bastards.
3) Profit!!
With 2 years spam saved in my inbox (on another machine because eventually THAT became unmanagable) Im looking forward to this guys "spam kit". However Im wondering if Im only limited to sueing spamming companies...can I sue the services that have an open proxy, the ISPs that allow their customers to have an open proxy? Can I sue yahoo/hotmail for allowing their services to be used for spam. Oh the possibilities.....
Spam, Spam, Spam, Bacon and Eggs and Spam. I suppose the Brits have gotten over there infatuation with it.
Whatever else happens, I'm generating publicity for the company, they may end up doing very well out this spam on their behalf.
If I tried to make the spam unappealing to negate the above effect, it'd be more obvious that it was a bogus campaign done without their knowledge.
Of course, the intelligent ones out there reading this will be sure to think of clever ideas that look like they would be good promotion for the company but would end up doing more harm than good - so it looks like a failed campaign rather than anything malicious - but would YOU risk it?
Because of this, this whole problem doesn't really exist.
Jolyon
Please read my Canon EOS tech blog at http://www.everyothershot.com
It seems that more and more spammers are using frivolous lawsuits against RBL maintainers. The AHBL The ABHL is one such recent victim of a lawsuit, in fact after two years of threats by the alledged spammer. In this case the litigant is acting pro se and is seeking outrageous damages (over 3 million). I have personally banned his ass at the ISP I work for --several times in fact when he moved his operations after being TOS'd.
More information at the Abusive Hosts Blocking Lists' legal defense page.
It's true no man is an island, but if you take a bunch of dead guys and tie 'em together, they make a good raft.
...it's promising that the spammers had to cough up £300 for a single email!
I could understand if the guy had clicked the "unsubscribe" link in a previous email from the company, kind of like sexual harrassment law where you have to say "stop" first. And then if he wanted to sue, he could present the first email, the second email, and a screenshot of the browser at the "removed from list" page. If one email is all it takes to sue someone, what's to stop my father-in-law from suing me when I ask him to join the latest pyramid scheme?
They actually served the company once for each e-mail sent - they spent hours cleaning out their inbox!
i thoughed spam was legal
It's like all those political flyers and commercials you get in your physical mailbox
in front of your house.
i do think when ppl reply on your spam and ask you for no more spam
u should comply to that person's wishes
But i cannot see the difference between paper or electronic multi marketing.
And imho this is another stupid law the EU passed before thinking about it
When somebody prefixes a remark with "I think..." implying they are not sure, and suggests that the amount is claim-dependent, prefixing your reply with "Wrong" is bad manners.
I'm making this point because we've been recruiting this year, and one of the questions I always get asked about candidates is "are they safe to talk to clients?"
I am assuming you are in England because you use the vernacular ("£50 quid"), but not a native speaker or you would know the £ sign is redundant (£50 or 50 quid but NOT £50 quid) so you should be aware that phraseology like yours is unlikely to endear you to senior management. In the early phases of my own career I came over like that...then I decided that what goes for your peer group is no good if you want promotion. Just a suggestion.
Pining for the fjords
The article is self-contradictory as to whether the case was settled in or out of court.
It both says that the judge ruled in his favour (as the defendant did not defend himself) AND it it says the claim was settled out of court.
I assume the former is correct (which in all likelihood it is, as the spammers probably did not go to court or otherwise try to defend the action against them).
At this point, the claim would be beyond sewttling out of court.
I could understand if the guy had clicked the "unsubscribe" link in a previous email from the company, kind of like sexual harrassment law where you have to say "stop" first.
I never asked for it, don't have a prior relationship with them, so they have no reason to mail me, not to mention that in the EU due to its privacy laws, its not unlikely that their collecting and storing of personal information on me (name, email address) is illegal in itself without my prior permission. And really, go try to 'fondle' a random woman on the street and see how that works out.. or rather, just take my word for it, that is quite punishable. (and yeah, a somewhat extreme form of sexual harassment, better called assault, but the line between those 2 is prett thin and depends at least in part on what prior relationship you'd have with that woman.. oh, and those who happen to have a different sexual preference should ofcourse read man instead of woman where appropriate)
And then if he wanted to sue, he could present the first email, the second email, and a screenshot of the browser at the "removed from list" page. If one email is all it takes to sue someone, what's to stop my father-in-law from suing me when I ask him to join the latest pyramid scheme?
I believe he should be able to sue you for believing in stupid schemes, but thats not the law. You'd in that case be protected by having a prior relationship probably. In this case your idea would apply, going on when asked to stop may be an offense.
I'll assume you're not British and not familiar with Small Claims Courts. The company was found guilty. There was to be a later hearing to determine the amount of compensation awarded. The company offered a figure before the later hearing and the claimant accepted it.
Also at Small Claims Court in the UK, if one of the parties doesn't turn up to the hearing, judgement is automatically awarded against them whether they're the claimant or the defendent. Which is bloody brilliant because it means that if a company in the South East of England screws me, I can take them to a local Small Claims Court, which is over 300 miles away from them, and if they don't turn up, I've won. If they don;t pay, I can then go back for a warrant, have bailiffs seize their property (at a cost of £100+ per time) and auction it, returning time and time again until not only is the judgement satisfied but the bailiffs fees too.
Conor "You're not married,you haven't got a girlfriend and you've never seen Star Trek? Good Lord!" - Patrick Stewart
Its funny because internet brings new possibilities togather with a new threats like spam, content theft etc. Its fine if the law can fight against spam effectively, but ussually it can not(http://www.e-verdict.com/justice-system). The spammer can sit and perform its dirty job from some undeveloped country where no any civilized law will reach him. The same works with content theft. If the server is in some country which is free of normal laws, the thiefs will flourish... How can we fight this new technology issues efficiently and effectively? One think we can do for sure is to list all these people and organizations which are untrustable. Then the other people will know who they are dealing with.
www.e-verdict.com -> People's opinions and judgments
source
Health Insurance Quotes
As with so many news and slashdot stories, it's important to remember we (the world) are a largely market-driven society. If, for example, we opted out of using cable-TV when they raised the rates, they might stop. But they raise the rates because they can- because most morons will pay. (I do not have cable. :)
On topic- who the heck pays these spammers? Who the heck buys their products? If the sellers are also the spammers, it seems that it would be easy to find them- wouldn't someone eventually take matters into their own hands?
How about getting congress (or some other world governing body) to allow DOS and other attacks against spamming computers? I know- source IP are forged. How about getting all Internet routers to only forward legitimate source addresses? Pretty difficult I'm sure.
I've often considered buying something from a spammer only if I can get their contact info, then pursuing some form of legal fight. Sigh.
I just wish people would not buy their wares- they would eventually fade away.
Not a nasty company. An individual author. Too bad he's in Canada and I'm here in lowly US, I could use some extra money.
I replied back to the email address I found on his website so I could warn him that somebody was sending out spam emails about his book, and he said that he sent it to me because my email address was on the internet. Stupid internet, always telling everybody about me.
If you want to see the email chain, it is here
If one email is all it takes to sue someone, what's to stop my father-in-law from suing me when I ask him to join the latest pyramid scheme?
How could you prove that it's the same spammer from whose list you "unsubscribed"? The spammer had no right to collect the addresses and send mails to them. This case was in the EU, not in the US where a ridiculous law allows all the many thousands of companies to send you spam until you "unsubscribe" from something you never subscribed to and thereby let the spammers know that the address is active.
Your father in law stands in a certain relation to you, a spammer doesn't. There may be a theoretical problem of some borderline cases of spamming, but in practice, about most spam, there is no doubt.
that it is now one, big country. All EU member "countries" are now mere states of a larger federation, unfortunately one whose goal is not law and order, but bureaucracy, red tape, and meaningless "declarations" just like the United Nations.
And all they can bitch about is George W. Bush. I can't help but figure that's how European politicians distract their constituents from the travesty going on with Europe's political climate, is "hey, look what those Americans are doing!" when most of Europe's problems are in its own dining room.