Slashdot Mirror
Court Renders $3 Judgment Against Spamhaus
www.sorehands.com writes "Back in 2006, e360Insight and David Linhardt obtained an $11.7M judgment against Spamhaus, an international anti-spam organization. The judgment was subsequently appealed and reduced to $27,002. That judgment was appealed yet again, and the appeals court has now vacated the earlier number and entered a judgment against Spamhaus in the amount of $3. (Yes, three dollars.) As you may recall, e360's oral arguments for the latest appeal were not well received by the court."
The ruling itself is a fairly entertaining diatribe about how e360 shot itself in the foot repeatedly and with enthusiasm throughout the case, and contains gems like this: "By failing to comply with its basic discovery obligations, a party can snatch defeat from the jaws of certain victory."
The spammers still won... Sure it's only 3 dollars.. But they still won. Instead of being burned at the stake like they deserve... How is that justice or a good thing?
It's not perfect, but it is good because Spamhaus gets to stay in business and fight spam for all of us.
They only won because Spamhaus decided not to show up to the original trial. If you don't show up, you lose.
You can read more about it in TFA.
I'm guessing the $3 comes from $1 for each of the three charges in the original suit - the lowest amount a US Judge is allowed to award a plaintiff. In other words: "I have to decide in your favor, but I'll be damned if you actually get anything out of it".
How many people actually legitimately "opt-in" for spam? Probably pretty close to 0.
Quite a few, actually.
Like ge7 said ... history has proven that people *will* opt into spam if you give them something in return. Give them a free ringtone, a mp3, some porn. Or a coupon for free food, and they'll agree to almost anything. It's not like anybody actually reads what they're agreeing to.
Of course, the flip side is that many of these people will scream bloody murder when these companies start spamming them "for no reason".
And many people do opt-in to spam -- spam that's highly targeted. As ge7 said ... GroupOn deals in your area? Often quite valuable, but once you stop caring -- it's spam.
Only after sinking however much money into lawyer's fees, and awards that low are fairly obvious code for "we're required by law to award you something, but you're a real asshat so you get the absolute minimum amount allowed".
From a quick scan of TFA, the final judgment boils down to:
Spamhaus tried to argue that the court didn't have personal jurisdiction, and sent a lawyer under General Appearance to argue against the amount of the judgement. The appeals court rightfully explained that by making such an argument, Spamhaus recognizes the jurisdiction of the court.
They initially attempted to argue lack of personal jurisdiction under Special Appearance of a lawyer, but then (probably due to a misunderstanding of law, and advice from a UK lawyer) feared that they might jeopardize their claim of lack of personal jurisdiction by appearance, and so they up and quit, withdrawing their appearance. As a result, a default judgement was entered (as was the normal course of fighting cases prior to special appearance), and their remaining position was to fight any attempts to recover the judgement with claims that the court had no personal jurisdiction. They decided for the other route of arguing against the damages, and thus making a general appearance and submitting to jurisdiction.
I honestly think it's probable that they were working under different legal assumptions based on UK law, rather than US law, and didn't understand how to properly argue lack of personal jurisdiction in the US... (since the US law in this matter differs from UK law, it's not an unreasonable assumption.)
WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
There's one important thing about having the spammers win: you can appeal if you lose a case, you can't appeal if you win. If the judge had ruled against the spammers, then they could have appealed at the next court up and wasted more time and money. This judgement means that Spamhaus can appeal if they want (which, I presume, they won't), but the spammers have to accept the judgement. The point of an award like this is to say 'you are technically in the right as a point of law, but you shouldn't actually win, no go home.'
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
That is half of the truth. The second part is content/applicability and ease of opt-out.
If my pencil-shop sends me an email after 5 years because he wants to sell a new one, it is spam. You don't expect it.
If my car-dealer sends me an email after 5 years because he wants to inform me about a call-back, most people would not consider it spam.
If my ISP sends me an email about pencils, it is spam.
If I cannot opt-out because I need my customer card to complete the procedure, it is spam.
Actually, and anyone at an ESP will tell you that, if the receiver thinks it is spam: it is. Because _that will_ hurt your deliverability at the hotmails and yahoos of the world.
Btw I'm in that business.
nosig today
Once you stop caring, it's fairly trivial to opt-out again... at least for legitimate services. Groupon would most certainly comply with an opt-out request.
Spam is UNSOLICITED!
If people signed up for it, then it is not spam.
Fight Spammers!
They should be required by law to provide a valid return email account so I can e-mail them back and tell them how little I appreciate them sending me their shit.
They are. The law just isn't enforced.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
I am an attorney, but this is not legal advice, and does not apply to your situation. If you want advice, pay my retainer.
Generally, responding at all confers jurisdiction, even if there was none to start with.
According to the opinion, spamhaus responded, and then changed it's mind.
Under traditional rules, all that could be done was contest jurisdiction, and any other act consented to jurisdiction (my civil procedure prof actually suggested using a letter rather than regular pleadings for good measure).
Under modern federal rules, and in most states, everything Canberra done at once--BUT you must deny Judie it croon in every pleading, or else.
hawk, Esq.
Spam boss: Hey Johnson, how are you coming on those replies to this morning's penis enlargement campaign?
Johnson: Making progress boss. Only 200,000 more replies left to read.
Spam boss: Great work Johnson.
Johnson: Hey boss?
Spam boss: Yeah Johnson?
Johnson: I think you should take a look at this reply from amiga3D...
Spam boss: Hmm... [reads email from Johnson's computer screen to self]
Spam boss: Well, sheeeeeiiiiiiiiiiiiit, Jonhson, this guy is really unhappy with us. Son of a gun.
Johnson: What should I do, boss?
Spam boss: Take him off all our lists IMMEDIATELY! Have operations cancel the campaign that's going out right now and the two in the queue until we can be sure he's on on those lists. Forward his email to customer service and have them reply with an apology, and offer him a coupon for 25% off of a spam campaign. We'd better nip this in the bud before this guy makes makes his complaints public -- our reputation depends on on it!
Johnson: Of course, boss! Right away!