MySpace Wins $230 Million Judgment Against Sanford Wallace

smooth wombat writes "Apparently some people just don't take the hint. The latest story in the Sanford Wallace spamming saga is a $230 million verdict against Wallace and his partner, Walter Rines, when they failed to show up in court. Wallace and Rines were accused by MySpace of creating their own accounts and taking over other accounts through phishing scams, and then using those accounts to send out bogus emails to other members. The emails sent would indicate a video or web site but when people would go to the link, the two would make money through the number of hits generated or they would try to sell something such as ring tones. According to MySpace, the pair sent over 730,000 emails to members which resulted in bandwidth and delivery-related costs as well as complaints from hundreds of members. The 2003 CAN-SPAM Act allows MySpace to collect $100 per violation or triple that amount when the spam is sent 'willfully and knowingly.'"

Comments

Where in the world is Sanford Wallace?

[MrMickS]

Now all they have to do is find him to serve the order.

Re:Where in the world is Sanford Wallace?

[hedwards]

The point is that these jackasses don't get to keep the proceeds of their criminal endeavors. Who really cares where the money actually goes as long as the spammers don't get to keep it?

Well, MySpace sort of won

[drhamad]

Important to note here is that nothing was actually tested in court. MySpace won a default judgment because the spammer did not show up. Besides the obvious issues of collecting, that means that they didn't really test anything in court.

Re:Aw, crap.

[gnick]

I hate spammers and MySpace alike, so I'm not sure what to think about this ruling. What's the problem with MySpace? It's trivially easy to ignore and it gives a lot of people that I don't feel like interacting with a place to interact with each-other. I just wish that there was a real-world version where all of the MySpace users could voluntarily commit themselves and withdraw from the rest of the world.

Spammers, however, reach out and touch me in ways I don't like to be touched. Kill 'em with fire.

Courts are not the answer

[troll -1]

I know I'm in the minority when I say I'm against the CAN-SPAM Act. I'm against it because it's pretty much a waste of time.

Note the contradictory statement FTA:

The judgment is a big victory for MySpace, although service providers often have a tough time collecting such awards.

I'd hazard a guess whatever MySpace collects it's still gonna end up costing them more in attorney fees than they could have spent on a technological solution.

Five years after CAN-SPAM and spam is at an all-time high. CAN-SPAM hasn't even made a dent.

The real problem with CAN-SPAM is that it's an extremely inefficient way of stopping something that could be accomplished more elegantly with technology.

Indeed, the reason my inbox isn't filled with spam is because of real-time black holes and filters, *not* because of CAN-SPAM.

If only the lawyers were programmers.

Re:Courts are not the answer

[sm62704]

I know I'm in the minority when I say I'm against the CAN-SPAM Act.

I sincerely doubt that, at least, I doubt you're in the minority here. The CAN-SPAM act basically says that your corporate overlords CAN-SPAM you with impunity.

Five years after CAN-SPAM and spam is at an all-time high.

That's because it's a bad law. Had they actually outlawed unsolicited commercial email with jail time for spammers and financial remedies to Joe Public and his Windows box, it may have alleviated spam somewhat, or at least moved its operators overseas (not that you'd get any less spam).

Re:MySpace **IS** Spam...

[Tony Hoyle]

MySpace can now use some of the lawyers fees they saved to hire a nice bunch of debt collectors to go after him. If Wallace sticks his head up *anywhere* they'll find him and he'll lose pretty much everything he owns to pay the judgment - house, car, computer, etc.

The large sum pretty much means that no matter how much money he makes between now and then he stands to lose all of it the moment he's found.

Re:frivolous

[LoudMusic]

The number of $230 million seems a bit high.

$300 dollars per spam seems excessive when the average return per spam mail probably lies far below $1. The damages done to the "MySpace" name are worth the $300 per incident, especially when there are over 700,000 documented incidents. The cumulative damage of 700,000 people saying "MySpace is nothing but spam - don't go there" can completely destroy a business.

And besides, these assholes are doing the same thing and worse in a variety of places. If you hit them hard enough on the ones you catch them doing hopefully they'll stop doing it elsewhere as well.

They do take some hints...

[Kjella]

Apparently some people just don't take the hint. They've taken one hint - people like that rarely have assets. House? Rented. Car? Leased. Money? Not in the bank. There's nothing to seize and the rent usually isn't refundable, so unless they get at the source all they can do is try to catch the rent money. That usually means it's time to pack up and run the same setup all over again. It's amazing how rich some people can be that officially are dead broke... So 230$ million? Let us know how much they collect. Hard time would be much more effective.

Re:Death to Spammers!

[drinkypoo]

Well, someone has to say it. Spammers serve no social good, and it's a pretty bad species that preys on its own.

Every species preys on its own. Every species has its deviants. Did you know that there are ants who will make alcohol, and they can actually imbibe it and be intoxicated, but if they are caught making it or using it they are killed? Did you know that baby eagles eat their nestmates if they hatch too much later? Did you know, you know, anything about animals, or the fact that we are some?

Re:Criminal investigation?

[NormalVisual]

Perhaps for the same reason they police and prosecute the results of weak door locks?

Re:Spamford Wallace!

[swordgeek]

Martha Siegel is a spammer you won't hear from again--she died in 2000.

However, she's probably the ONLY spammer you won't hear from again. Spamford Wallace, Alan Ralsky, Scott Richter, Michael Lindsay, are all names that will keep coming back. The fact that they're not all serving life in jail doing hard labour is proof that (a) the Can-Spam law doesn't work, and (b) countries have to start working together to castrate these SOBs.

As long as they're alive, they'll try to scam people. Internet spam is the 'niche' that they're best at, but they'll do whatever it takes to steal money and then defend themselves indignantly and self-righteously.