Facebook Awarded $711 Million In Anti-Spam Case

An anonymous reader writes "Facebook is on a never-before-seen legal rampage against high profile internet spammers. Today Facebook was awarded yet another nine-figure settlement, this time for over $700 million. Facebook also has a criminal contempt case on Wallace, which means a high likelihood of prison, a big win for the internet and a milestone in cyber law. 'The record demonstrates that Wallace willfully violated the statutes in question with blatant disregard for the rights of Facebook and the thousands of Facebook users whose accounts were compromised by his conduct,' Jeremy Fogel wrote in his judgment order, which permanently prohibits Wallace from accessing the Facebook Web site or creating a Facebook account, among other restrictions."

A Time Line of Sanford Wallace

[eldavojohn]

What's wrong with this picture?

2004-10-08 FTC files suit against Wallace to stop infecting computers with spyware that promised to remove the problem for $30.
2006-03-22 FTC files suit against Wallace--Wallace and co-defendants fined for over $5 million.
2008-01-26 MySpace awarded $230 million from Wallace in LA.
2009-10-29 (Yesterday) Facebook awarded $711 million from Wallace.

If you say seven hundred million and jail time is too much, I say it isn't enough. A warning didn't stop him, five million didn't stop him, two hundred million didn't stop him and I'm sure seven hundred million won't stop him. Throw the book at him and lock him up--this is definition CAN-SPAM Act. And he's a heavy repeat offender, it's not like this guy was blindsided with a surprise ruling. Spam is too kind of a label for this guy, I would hit him for extortion and identity theft on massive scales in addition to CAN-SPAM.

How he continued to operate with a two hundred million dollar loss a year and a half ago is beyond me. Is he just declaring bankruptcy (like he did back June '09 [insidefacebook.com]), rolling over and doing it again? Or avoiding states where there's a warrant for his arrest or what?

Stupid Name

[Monkeedude1212]

Does anyone else find it ironic that the "Can-Spam Act" is meant to stop people from spamming, specifically from the false and misleading type?

Idea!

[gcnaddict]

Facebook should just use this as their business model.

I mean hey, if the money ever actually does come in, it's perfectly viable given how often people spam Facebook users.

Good ol' Spamford

[willith]

Sweet merciful crap, is Spamford Wallace [wikipedia.org] still around? We were stabbing voodoo dolls with his picture on them more than ten years ago. His C.V. reads like list of things that are wrong with the Internet. If there were ever someone that the world would be a better place without, it's this guy.

Re:A Time Line of Sanford Wallace

[El Jynx]

Heh. Nice. But the problem is as old as humanity itself: forbidding is one thing, preventing is quite another. I agree, jailtime is the only way to go for a recidivist like that. And he's just abusing international law and such: just because you go bust in one country doesn't mean you can't have $500m tucked away in another. Until treaties are formed which address these problems - and thankfully, tax havens have come under heavy fire of late - this type of crap is just going to continue.

What I don't get is why a joker like that - who is obviously intelligent - doesn't just find a legal way to get rich. It can't be that hard.

Re:Stupid Name

[Anonymous Coward]

The complaints about CAN-SPAM when it first came out was that it was so weak and watered down that it was essentially legalizing spamming, and exactly that: you can spam.

Re:A Time Line of Sanford Wallace

[mysidia]

It can't be that hard.

Yes, well, it can be that hard. There are lots of intelligent people who aren't and can't be rich, although they want to be.

More than intelligence is required.

And apparently, for this guy, he's skilled in getting rich using uncouth methods. It's what he's familiar with, it's what comes easy for him (I suppose)

Re:A Time Line of Sanford Wallace

[Penguinisto]

1) They'd have to actually find him first (odds are good that all but the first cases were done with him in absentia).

2) Good luck collecting.

3) this may sound a bit trollish, but a thought occurred to me: as of right now, Spamford Wallace likely owes enough money to buy a brand new ballistic missile submarine. No one will ever see so much as a dime from him. So... why did they even bother? It's similar to the RIAA and Jammie Thomas - there comes a point where it becomes less of a statement and more of a parody. Trust me, I have zero sympathy for the son of a bitch, but do we have to make a mockery of our own legal system just to make a point?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Are you for real?

[damn_registrars]

There's a certain point where we need to consider the death penalty for this sort of thing.

Are you trying to actually accomplish something or are you just trying to make yourself feel better?

from a utilitarian perspective it is quite clear that people like Sanford Wallace are doing far more damage to society

OK, we'll go for the latter (much) more so than the former.

There are multiple reasons that any sensible person can quickly come up with as to why this would be a useless guesture:

• There are too many spammers to kill them all (or even make a dent in the spam volume by trying)
• Spammers are stateless, and will just flee to countries where spam laws don't exist - where they can continue to make money through spamming
• There is too much money in spam to prevent people from going into it just because there is a remote chance of facing criminal charges in one country for it

And thats just getting started...

You'd might as well use a voodoo doll, it would be just as effective and far less expensive.

Facebook is now the government?

[Chapter80]

From the summary:

Facebook also has a criminal contempt case on Wallace

I thought criminal cases were always "The State v. ___" or another government agency. I have a hard time believing that Facebook has a criminal case against the guy.

Is there a lawyer in the house (or at least someone who plays lawyer on Slashdot)?

Re:Time for the death penalty

[Anonymous Coward]

To be serious for a moment, why has this jackass not been completely prohibited from using the internet? Judges have already told him that he can no longer use Myspace or Facebook - why not just bite the bullet and tell him that he cannot use the internet at all?

Considering his track record in junk faxes as well, I'd probably suggest disallowing him use of any communication service whatsoever. If he still wants to "spam," he can do it in person where his "potential customer" can easily respond... preferably by a swift kick to the balls.

Re:A Time Line of Sanford Wallace

[morgauxo]

Nah, let's make him a mail server. Give him one of those old green and black text terminals. Give it an IP and make any requests to port 25 go to his screen. His job is to read the incoming SMTP commands and respond accordingly. He would then swivel his chair to a second terminal where he would use telnet to connect to port 25 of the destination servers and send the message on... manually. I'm sure he will get a special kick out of messages with attachments! He can do this eight hours a day 5 days a week (I can only be so sadistic even to him) for minimum wage applied towards his debt. No doubt the server will get backlogged quickly and I wouldn't expect him to keep up with it all. I would deduct for typos though. I'm sure some Slashdotters could think of things to send via the Spamford Mail Server

Re:Stupid Name

[mcgrew]

I think it's such a weak law (and probably intentionally so) that it means that you can spam with impunity.

Re:A Time Line of Sanford Wallace

[lowrydr310]

Eh, someone with his intellect could easily go get a job on Wall Street. Then he could make millions just as unethically, but legally.

Re:Nice

[DurendalMac]

Hey, the little guy isn't always the good guy and the big guy isn't always the bad guy.