Spammers Finally Under the Legal Gun?

MarkvW writes with this welcome bit of Schadenfreude: "People are finally starting to use the anti-spam laws in the malevolent manner in which they were intended — unlimited consumer lawsuits from unlimited plaintiffs!" The story's protagonist is my hero for the season.

Comments

"Unlimited plaintiffs"??

[fishexe]

How is this "unlimited consumer lawsuits from unlimited plaintiffs!"? What I see in this article is a substantial but limited number of lawsuits from one plaintiff.

Re:You'd think TFA could at least get English righ

[Smallpond]

To be fair, a one-man crusade is fairly easy to lift.

Dan is... odd

[MBCook]

I know a company that has had the fun of dealing with Dan. While I hate spammers as much as the next guy, Dan's little crusade seems less than legal to me. Having a valid opt-out isn't good enough. Here is what you agree to by sending him email (not that you would know it at the time):

All persons, businesses, and other entities that send any unsolicited commercial email to any email address containing “danbalsam.com” voluntarily enter a contract with Dan Balsam and agree to be bound by the terms of the contract and “No Spam Policy” as described herein.

1. Unless Dan Balsam or someone else with an email address including “danbalsam.com” has specifically opted in to receive commercial email from you, you understand and agree that neither Dan Balsam nor anyone else with an email address including “danbalsam.com” has ever requested any commercial communication from you, and that any commercial email you send that includes “danbalsam.com” in the To, Cc, or Bcc fields that fits these criteria is against the express wishes of the recipient(s).
2. As consideration for reading your unsolicited commercial email, you agree that any email you send which advertises or promotes any product, service, or Internet destination shall be subject to a $25,000.00 fee for reading and responding appropriately. The fee may be paid in advance at PayPal, or Dan Balsam will remit an invoice.
3. You accept responsibility for any affiliates or marketing agents who promote any product, service, or Internet destination on your behalf.
4. Concealing your identity increases the fee by $10,000.00 to compensate for the effort to track down the sender.
5. You may not sell, barter, or give away to any other party any email addresses containing the domain name “danbalsam.com.” Violation of this clause subjects you to liquidated damages of $10,000.00 or ten (10) times the amount of money you made selling the address(es), whichever is greater.
6. You agree that California Business & Professions Code 17529.5 is not pre-empted by the Federal CAN-SPAM Act, 15 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.
7. In the event that any suit or action is instituted to enforce any provision in this contract, Dan Balsam shall be entitled to all costs and expenses of maintaining such suit or action, including reasonable attorneys’ fees.
8. This contract shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the parties hereto and their respective heirs, successors, assigns, administrators, executors and other legal representatives.
9. Any action in respect of or concerning this contract shall be litigated solely in California and both parties consent to jurisdiction in California. This contract shall be governed by, construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of California.
10. Sending email to or copying to or blind copying to any email address containing the domain name “danbalsam.com,” or similar actions by your affiliates/agents, constitutes voluntary acceptance of these terms.

Copyright © 2002-present, Daniel Balsam

Re:Dan is... odd

[Anonymous Coward]

Having a valid opt-out isn't good enough.

No, it isn't.

I'm not Dan, but I've dealt with people who think like you before.

Let me put it simply: I didn't opt in to your spam. You're already stealing my time and resources if you managed to get it through my spam filters. So I'm sure as fuck not going to trust you to opt me back out of it.

Re:spam is just an example of e-Marketing

[Opportunist]

Because it's using my resources to "speak" without asking me first.

The first amendment does not require me to hold your protest rally in my garden. I may do it, provided I support your case or at least don't care, but the 1st does not require me to surrender my property or my rights to something (in this case, the storage space on a server that I have the right to use) to let someone execute his 1st amendment right.