US appeals court cans CAN-SPAM suit
A farewell to litigation factories
In a decision that could make it harder for internet users to take spammers to court, a federal appeals court has upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit against a company that sent a man more than 13,000 unsolicited emails.
A three-judge panel from the Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with a lower-court judge that under a federal law that went into effect in 2004, plaintiff James S. Gordon Jr. lacked standing to sue online marketing business Virtumundo. The panel ruled that under the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing, or CAN-SPAM, act, lawsuits can only be brought by select law-enforcement agencies and providers of an IAS, or "internet access service."
The judges went on to dismiss claims Gordon brought under a separate Washington-state law forbidding deceptive commercial emails, holding that that CAN-SPAM preempted the law. The state statute allowed private individuals to sue people who send them deceptive marketing emails that were unsolicited. The net effect, legal experts said, is that internet users will have fewer options for taking legal action against spammers.
"It is going to be harder for individuals to sue companies that send them spam because trying to shoehorn a claim under statutes prohibiting deception will be looked on by courts with skepticism," said Dave Kramer, an attorney at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati who helped draft the Washington law.
Critics have long complained that CAN-SPAM was full of so many loopholes that it had little effect on the torrent of spam that lands in inboxes everyday. The Ninth Circuit's decision is only likely to strengthen those claims. It will set a higher bar for individuals who want to invoke it in lawsuits. Specifically, they will have to show they are an IAS and will then have to show they faced significant harm as a result of receiving spam.
When Gordon brought the suit in 2006, he was already a fixture in state in federal courts, which he peppered with lawsuits against spammers. He made it a habit to send spammers responses demanding they cease their junkmail campaign and demanding $500 for any repeat offenses. He also set up multiple email accounts on behalf of friends and family members and monitored them for unsolicited messages.
Gordon told the court he had collected more than 13,800 junk messages.
This has led to criticism that Gordon is a "professional plaintiff" who opportunistically milks anti-spam laws for his own personal gain. Those points weren't lost on US Appeals Court Judge Ronald M. Gould.
"For a person seeking to operate a litigation factory, the purported harm is illusory and more in the nature of manufactured circumstances in an attempt to enable a claim," he wrote in a concurring opinion. "In my view, manufactured claims should not be tolerated absent a clear endorsement from Congress."
A PDF of the decision is available here. ®
So the take away here is...
1) Forward all my spam email to 'firstname.lastname@example.org'.
2) Leave my WiFi router open so I can qualify as an 'IAS'.
Got it. Thanks!
Don't do as we do, do as we say...
@AC 08:52 GMT. Dam, now why didn't I think of that, now all as I have to do is contact all those people in the forged headers who send me spam <slaps forehead with palm of hand>.
Still what a surprise, 'merkin court side with big business, its true what they say on the 'merkin dollar, "In god we trust" (all others pay cash).
Meanwhile in other news,
James Gordon is sued by the MAFIAA for copyright royalties for use for the unlicensed operation of a "litigation factory" and for opportunistically milking the law for his own personal gain. A spokesman for the MAFIAA stated that "Home litigation is destroying the legal industry and that it was merely trying to protect the creative output of its lawyers. If the MAFIAA failed to protect the creative works of its lawyers then it would not be able to invest in new and upcoming lawyers".
Spam the judge?
Good thing I don't know the judge's email address. I'd send him a few juicy thoughts about protecting the civil rights of the absolutely anti-civil spammers.
How about the economic argument of following the money? How much would the value of the Internet be increased if the spammers were removed? I think it might well be enough to revive the economy.