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."

9 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 LiquidCoooled · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Suppose you own a company, Tlacuache Inc.

      If I decided to commission a detailed spam campaign on your behalf (but without your knowledge - lets call it a 'gift' from the members of my botnet).

      How could you prove you DIDN'T instigate the run, and how could you prove its not your fault?

      Do you enjoy giving your money away?
      This fine hopefully won't set off a trend.

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    2. Re:Nice job... by rcw-work · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Thats technically an opt-in

      If the default is to receive email - the user has to go out of their way to not receive email - exactly how is that opt-in?

      Clue: If you have a mailing list of people who don't really want to be on it, it probably isn't an opt-in mailing list.

  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. How will it be paid..? by Zwets · · Score: 3, Funny

    £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
  4. 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.

  5. Not a lot, in the UK by Flying+pig · · Score: 3, Interesting
    This is the UK Small Claims Court. I think it currently costs about 80UKP to make a claim, scaling to 10% of the amount claimed. You do not need a lawyer, you can fill in the forms yourself and ask the clerk for advice. The court is fairly informal, run by a kind of junior judge for the most part, who is allowed to employ considerable common sense ("equity"). So it might, possibly, take a day of your time which may be worth it to deal with a very annoying spammer. Oh, and if they decide to ignore your case...summary judgement against them.

    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
  6. Male Enhancement Industry Dead by ranton · · Score: 3, Funny

    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
  7. Re: decided in or out of court? by Conor+Turton · · Score: 4, Interesting
    The article is self-contradictory as to whether the case was settled in or out of court.

    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