Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Spammer Sued Under EU Law

Posted by Zonk on from the good-day-for-clean-inboxes dept.

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."

7 of 102 comments (clear)

  1. Nice job... by tlacuache · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Nice job... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      well the first and most obvious requirement for a lawsuit that you refer to would be proof that you hired the company.

      it isnt exactly a new concept.

      just cause it involves the "interweb" doesnt make it a new concept, doesnt make it a new situation that must be handled differently, you hired a company to break the law for you, that is a crime (or civil offense depending on what law)

  2. And from the article... by Misch · · Score: 4, Informative

    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
  3. Re:But... by Rinzwind · · Score: 3, Informative

    Courtfees where payed by the spammer and totalled a staggering of 30 pounds. And there was not a lawyer present.

  4. The Messed with the Wrong Man by putko · · Score: 2, Informative

    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_s tone_your_children/dt21_18a.html
  5. Doesn't help individuals though by Gandalf_the_Beardy · · Score: 2, Informative

    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

  6. Re: decided in or out of court? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    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.