Comments on: Suing emailers for a living

By: Unsolicited-email plaintiff John Ferron

Unsolicited-email plaintiff John Ferron — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 05:41:28 +0000

[…] on repeat spam litigation here, here, and […]

By: markm

markm — Fri, 15 Jun 2007 14:45:21 +0000

Ted: “There’s no profit in going against the actual law violators, because they’re fly-by-night operations.” As I understand it, most spammers are getting paid to “advertise” a business that actually has an address and a phone number, otherwise they wouldn’t have a way to sell products to the nitwits that respond to the spam. The spammer probably cannot be found, but whoever profits fromt he spam can be. Isn’t paying someone to violate the law also a violation?

Now, in this case Gordon obviously failed to collect the evidence needed to show that they were violating the law, and may even have been engaging in entrapment. However, going after the merchandisers is the only way we’re going to limit the flood of spam.

By: Ted

Ted — Mon, 11 Jun 2007 12:38:06 +0000

Note that this was not a suit against a spammer. For the most part, trial lawyers don’t sue spammers, because they’re judgment-proof. There’s no profit in going against the actual law violators, because they’re fly-by-night operations.

This was a lawsuit against a legitimate business using a tendentious reading of the anti-spam laws. As with most civil consumer protection laws, the laws utterly miss their target and hit the innocent instead.

By: Ima Fish

Ima Fish — Mon, 11 Jun 2007 11:00:58 +0000

Leave it to an attorney to make spammers (aka, mass email marketers) look sympathetic!