www.sorehands.com writes: "Last week, a California Court of Appeals upheld the trial court decision awarding Dan Balsam $7,000.00 in damages and $81,900 in attorney fees and costs.
The court found that the Defendants use of Godaddy's Domains by Proxy service for the domain names in the headers was sufficient to make the headers deceptive where there was no other identifier in the from lines to identify Trancos as the sender was illegal as a matter of law. In a past case, I successfully argued that these types of domain name anonymity service makes the provider of the service liable as the owner of the domain name.
This case also endorsed the ruling in Hypertouch v. Valueclick, which found that the California law is not preempted by the I-CAN-SPAM Act."
www.sorehands.com writes: "While one spammer, Robert Soloway, gets released on probation, the Feds send another, Robert Smoley, to the slammer for 40 months.
I know about Smoley because I tracked him down, and beat him in court. Not only was he an attorney, he still has not lost his license, yet. The IRS contacted me as a result of seeing my web site, and I gladly assisted the IRS in tracking his business.
He not only bounced a check on me, but stiffed his local counsel and one of his ISPs."
www.sorehands.com writes: In the first California appeals court ruling, in Hypertouch v. Valueclick, it is ruled that the I-CAN-SPAM Act does not preempt California Business & Professions Code Section 17529.5. California Business & Professions Code Section 17529.5 prohibits the use of falsified headers and subject lines that are likely to mislead recipients.
Spammers have been claiming, and some courts have been ruling, that to survive preemption, a Plaintiff has to show all the elements of fraud (false representation, knowledge, reliance, and damage from the reliance.) The reliance and damage from the reliance is difficult as it would essentially require the recipient to buy the penis enlargement pills and show that they don't work, or to send the money to the Nigerian prince. An ISP could never show reliance and harm, as they are not the recipient and would not be responding to e-mails traversing their systems.
Spammers, and Courts have been claiming that the rulings in Gordon v. Virtumundo, 575 F.3d 1040, and Omega World Travel, Inc. v. Mummagraphics (4th Cir. 2006) 469 F.3d 348 rules that state laws are preempted, but this is dispelled in Hypertouch. In both Gordon and Omega, there was no false information inserted, just not complete (the spammer could be identified using a whois lookup.) In Hypertouch, it is alleged that there were false names in the headers. The Court's seem not to get, or it has not been argued, that a from line is supposed to say who/what an e-mail is from, not from the "Free 50 inch plasma TV." What legitimate business hides their identity when sending an e-mail?
While most of the federal courts have been ruling that it is not required, those rulings do not bind the state courts. This ruling binds all California courts.
The ruling also made it clear that the advertiser is responsible for the acts of their agents, even if their agents promise not to spam. This is very important, as in most, and my own litigation, the Defendants' David Szpak and Emmanuel Gurtler have their affiliates agree not to spam, but had hired Yamboo Financials, (See http://www.spamhaus.org/rokso/evidence.lasso?rokso_id=ROK3095 ) which had 17 different affiliate ids, and ignored multiple lawsuits for spamming.
www.sorehands.com writes: In his ruling (http://www.scribd.com/doc/33079676/e360-Insight-LLC-v-The-Spamhaus-Project-N-D-Ill-June-11-2010) today, Judge Kocoras cut the $11MM Award Against Spamhaus to $27,002.
Today, the Court in e360Insight v. Spamhaus ruled in favor of 3e360Insight and David Linhardt in the amount of $27,002. After three years of litigation, and several other related lawsuits.
Linhardt crowed about his $11M win against Spamhaus, but when it came to providing any damages, he failed. But for a procedural failure of the original Spamhaus counsel, the case could have quickly been disposed of.
The fact that Linhardt crowed about his Spamhaus judgment and filed lawsuits against people who brought him to the attention of myself and others who initiated proceedings against him. He had been sued by myself, some details at http://www.barbieslapp.com/spam, John Ferron, some details at http://spamsuite.com/node/333.
He sued newsgroup participants for calling him a spammer, claiming that they are part of the great Spamhaus conspiracy against him. Those suits were dismissed, then filed again, and dismissed, and then finally dismissed again. I don't know how much Linhardt paid to be allowed to dismiss those cases.
Linahardt sued Comcast for blocking his spam, more information at http://spamsuite.com/node/352 . Not only did the judge make a quick dismissal of Linhardt's claims, while calling him a spammer, but Comcast filed a counter-suit against Linhardt. When the judgment started with "Plaintiff e360Insight, LLC is a marketer. It refers to itself as an Internet marketing company. Some, perhaps even a majority of people in this country, would call it a spammer." you know the ruling would not go well for Linhardt. The counter-claim was settled leaving Linhardt subject to $250,000 penalty if he sends spam to another Comcast customer.
Linhardt also sued Choicepoint for selling him e-mail addresses, claiming that is why he he was sued by Silverstein, Ferron, and had to settle with Mark Ferguson. Choicepoint's initial response is that he was sued for sending deceptive spam, not for sending spam. Of course, Linhardt's claims that he does not spam is directly contradicted by this lawsuit, if they had opted in with Linhardt, why would he be buying lists from these list brokers? If Ferron, Ferguson, or myself signed up with Linhardt, why would he sue Choicepoint for providing these e-mail addresses?
Of course, a group of spammers could have been funding the litigation against Spamhaus and anti-spammers and just using Linhardt as a front.
www.sorehands.com writes: In the first case brought by a ½Âoespam½Â recipient to actually go to trial in California, the Superior Court of California held that people who receive false and deceptive spam emails are entitled to liquidated damages of $1,000 per email under California Business & Professions Code Section 17529.5. http://danhatesspam.com/california.html
In the the California Superior Court ruling, Judge Weiner made many references to the fact that Defendants used anonymous domain name registration and used unregistered business names in her ruling. This is different from the Gordon case where in Gordon, one only had to perform a simple whois lookup to identify the sender, here Defendants used from lines of "Paid Survey" and "Your Promotion" with anonymously registered domain names.
Judge Weiner's decision makes it clear that the California law is not preempted by the I CAN-SPAM Act. This has been determined in a few prior cases, including my own. See http://www.barbieslapp.com/spam for some of those cases.