Internet and e-mail policy and practice
including Notes on Internet E-mail


Click the comments link on any story to see comments or add your own.

Subscribe to this blog

RSS feed

Home :: Email

20 Sep 2006

Spamhaus Loses Court Case for $11 Million, Except They Didn't Email

Reports in the press have been saying that the Spamhaus Project lost an $11 million dollar lawsuit in Chicago to mailer e360 Insight. Technically it's true, in reality, it's not.

Courts are only supposed to accept civil cases like this one if they have jurisdiction over the defendant. The plaintiff claimed that Spamhaus does business in Illinois, which they don't, but the mere claim put Spamhaus in a difficult position. One option would have been to respond to the complaint and tell the judge that the court has no jurisdiction. Spamhaus started to do that, then realized this was a no-win strategy for two reasons: it could cost them a lot of money, since the lawyer who handles their cases doesn't work for free, and it could take quite a long time, particularly if the plaintiff appealed the case. Since the entire point of the case was to cost Spamhaus money, they decided not to play and their lawyers withdrew. In the absence of any defense, the judge had little choice other than to grant the plaintiff's proposed injunction with the $11 million, although he rejected a request for a further $15 million in punitive damages.

What effect will this have on Spamhaus? Precious little. Spamhaus says they're in England, which they are. (I've visited them there.) To enforce this judgement in England, the plaintiff would have to persuade an English court that it was valid. Unlike in the U.S., English courts use the loser-pays rule so that if they lost, they'd have to pay both their own legal costs and those of Spamhaus. There's no chance the plaintiff will do that, so Spamhaus is just ignoring them.

Adding to the confusion, an unrelated spammer was spamming out copies of the injunction to ISPs' abuse contacts with bogus threats about what will happen to them if they continue to use Spamhaus to block his mail. He's not very smart, since one of the abuse desks he spammed was his own ISP's who promptly shut him down.

posted at: 01:42 :: permanent link to this entry :: 1 comments
posted at: 01:42 :: permanent link to this entry :: 1 comments

comments...        (Jump to the end to add your own comment)

Too bad the judge did not require the plaintiff to show jurisdiction, as he could have required. The complaint alleged jurisdication. But this was a shaky claim. IMO this is sloppy judicial work, especially considering the potentially large impact (in $ and potential impact on spam delivery).

(by Alex Bobotek 10 Oct 2006 16:40)

Add your comment...

Note: all comments require an email address to send a confirmation to verify that it was posted by a person and not a spambot. The comment won't be visible until you click the link in the confirmation. Unless you check the box below, which almost nobody does, your email won't be displayed, and I won't use it for other purposes.

Email: you@wherever (required, for confirmation)
Title: (optional)
Show my Email address
Save my Name and Email for next time


My other sites

Who is this guy?

Airline ticket info

Taughannock Networks

Other blogs

Dave Piscitello on Ransomware
57 days ago

A keen grasp of the obvious
My high security debit card
603 days ago

Related sites

Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail

Network Abuse Clearinghouse

© 2005-2018 John R. Levine.
CAN SPAM address harvesting notice: the operator of this website will not give, sell, or otherwise transfer addresses maintained by this website to any other party for the purposes of initiating, or enabling others to initiate, electronic mail messages.