Your new assertion about cost as a verb is also not on point, because (1) as I explained, there is absolutely zero loss of revenue here, and (2) even if you view it as "the failure to gain/win something", my posts make clear that it is the inane ads, rather than the ad blocker, causing this failure.
Believing otherwise is to think it's a cost to the farmer on the side of the road every time I drive by his truck without stopping to buy vegetables.
If that's lost revenue, they the publisher is the one who lost it and it is up to them to find it again.
Hint: the solution is not technical.
It may be silly of the French, but it is within their rights to tell google to leave the country or abide by the rules.
Nothing to see here. Move along. Don't feed the samzentroll.
She settled out-of-court for an undisclosed amount (she probably didn't have to pay them for all the defamation she threw their way), and life goes on.
One case of unknown outcome 13 years ago in an area that would seem, on the surface, to be ripe for litigation, doesn't seem any more of a cautionary tale than any other hazard of going into business -- obviously companies want to do a good job on their TOS, but missing email just doesn't really seem to be an issue.
For example, there's nothing on wikipedia's email page or "online service provider law" pages about this, so, no, I'm still not convinced it would be a huge deal to tell people that you're dumping spam, and then dump spam.
There have, in fact, been lawsuits over [ISP deleting spam with no notification, even if its TOS says it will sometimes do that]
Citation needed. Seriously. I looked. And even if there was a suit, did the idiot win?
This is not rocket science, but too many people running mail servers don't understand the backscattter problem, and are not helping the spam situation.
It's also not legal rocket science. Shit happens, and important mail gets lost/misdirected/classified as spam, and people survive.
Personally, I'd love to be on a jury where some idiot is blaming all the woes of his existence on the fact that an ISP didn't forward a particular message. I've never even heard of such a case; perhaps that's because even the hungry lawyers know better.