Register.com Loses Class action Lawsuit 454
Anonymous Blowhard writes "I found out today I am a member of a class that just beat register.com in New York Supreme Court!! The suit was filed by Michael Zurakov because register.com pointed his newly registered domain(s) to 'coming soon' web pages. Mr. Zurakov receives $12,500 for the harm caused by register.com while members of the class can look forward to a settlement of $5 off their next domain renewals. Register.com will also pay 'reasonable Class Counsel attorneys'
fees and costs in an amount not to exceed $642,500.00, subject to Court approval.' If you want to exclude yourself from the class, giving up any settlement and not being bound by its terms, you have to opt-out."
I won this class action lawsuit... (Score:5, Funny)
$650,000 in court fees, huh? Guess we know who the lawyers were fighting for.
Re:I won this class action lawsuit... (Score:3, Insightful)
In other news... (Score:5, Funny)
Register.com today announced their fees are increasing by $5 for new domain registrations and renewals.
Re:In other news... (Score:3, Interesting)
DNS is set up so you can't get screwed even if your registrar goes under
Where did you get that idea? Network Solutions won in court when they said a registrar owns the domain name database it maintains. This means that, yes, if your registrar goes under, there is no knowing what will happen to your domain. It might be available for otehrs to buy, or the database might go to some creditor who then says they own all the domains in the db, who knows? That question has not been resolved to my satisfactio
Try again! (Score:4, Interesting)
ICANN requires that every registrar have a transfer agreement with another registrar in place in case it goes out of business.
GANDI used to have more about this, but it still has a little: GANDI FAQ [gandi.net].
Re:I won this class action lawsuit... (Score:3, Interesting)
If they did it in progressive stages so that it worked out to be 1 or 2 percent cap for really large awards, it might work.
One doctor wrote up his views on Proposition 12 and made copies to hand out to customers, friendsr, and neighbors. He received an intimidating lette from a lawyer telling him that if he spent more than some set amount of money, he was an illegal (unregistered) political action committee
Coming Soon page is common for new domains? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Coming Soon page is common for new domains? (Score:3, Interesting)
btw, that Register Coming Soon page was awful, with a flood of popups. Suprisingly un-pro thing to do.
Re:Coming Soon page is common for new domains? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Coming Soon page is common for new domains? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Coming Soon page is common for new domains? (Score:3, Informative)
Not to nit-pick, but a 404 is for Page Not Found and it would need to be sent back by a Web server running at that address. In other words, that domain would have to resolve to an IP that points to a Web server if you want to get a 404.
Just about all new domains (and new hosted sites once you move that domain to an ISP) start off with a Coming Soon page.
Re:Coming Soon page is common for new domains? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Coming Soon page is common for new domains? (Score:2)
But plenty of ISPs also have their own set of links on their Coming Soon pages -- it's certainly not just Register.com that does this.
And plenty of those ISPs are small 'boutique' companies -- shouldn't they all now be worried if their Coming Soon pages include links back to their site?
Re:Coming Soon page is common for new domains? (Score:3, Insightful)
Should they all be expected to change their Terms of Service too? "Warning: when you install Apache, it may include a default page with links to Apache and partner sites."
damages? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:damages? (Score:5, Interesting)
Technically, the $12.5K is for his services in representing the class. Otherwise, he likely would only get $5 as well. Still, what a completely frivolous lawsuit. It doesn't say in the article, but did he at least try to negotiate up-front first before wasting over half a million dollars in legal expenses?
People are Still using register dot com? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:People are Still using register dot com? (Score:3, Informative)
phew, finally.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:phew, finally.... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:phew, finally.... (Score:2)
now theres two!
Lawyer Spam! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Lawyer Spam! (Score:3, Funny)
Use the handy 'remove' link at the bottom of the filing.
This was a stupid lawsuit. (Score:5, Insightful)
What an idiot!
Now, he's costing them $600,000. Which ain't pocket change. I hope they can handle it. They've done pretty good. Customer service is okay. A little slow, but they answer their phones.
Re:This was a stupid lawsuit. (Score:5, Interesting)
This is the sort of litigious bull**** that we could do without. If the guy didn't know better than to submit his domain without name servers, or didn't know that these things don't get organized immediately, then he should sue whoever told him how to set up a website. Or better yet, he should just chock it up to learning the new forms of business in the internet age.
And class action my butt. It implies that he was doing this for all those people who were wronged by the defendant. If there were serious damages done, we'd have heard more about it from the enraged masses, and the settlement would have been something real or substantial. This was just a way to "lawyer up."
Re:This was a stupid lawsuit. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This was a stupid lawsuit. (Score:2, Interesting)
It reminds me of last year when I got my house painted. A few days before they came out, they stuck a sign on my lawn that basically advertised their services. True, I didn't appreciate that they didn't ask me to stick this physical sign in my lawn, but I understood that's how they advertise. I'd rather they do that than take out a $10,000 Yellow Page ad and charge me more for painting.
Again, shame.
Re:This was a stupid lawsuit. (Score:3, Insightful)
An error message (which is the alternative) is an indication the domain does not exist, or is not functioning. Those are distinctly diff
Re:This was a stupid lawsuit. (Score:3, Informative)
here's [register.com] the coming soon page, if anyone cares (I've seen far worse, tho)
Re:This was a stupid lawsuit. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This was a stupid lawsuit. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:This was a stupid lawsuit. (Score:5, Interesting)
Second, for that "coming soon" page to show up, they MUST have propagated an IP address into the DNS servers. This suggests they could have just as easily propagated YOUR IP address instead of theirs. Which gives them incentive to delay your processing.
Thrid, if they received ANY revenue off the advertising on your domain, aren't you entitled?
Re:This was a stupid lawsuit. (Score:5, Interesting)
"
Maybe you already received this amount in the form of discounted registration prices.
i myself use godaddy, though. http://www.godaddy.com
Re:This was a stupid lawsuit. (Score:2)
You're confusing domain registration with hosting. Just because a person registers a domain does not mean that person has an IP address ready to go into the DNS servers. I hardly think it's worthwhile to trade customer service (by delaying processing)
$5 off your next domain!! (Score:2)
Re:$5 off your next domain!! (Score:2)
According to their web site, it's $35/year (or $30 if you register for 5+ years) to renew a domain so I think 4 more coupons may be a bit much.
On another note, maybe register.com can use the extra business generated from their $5 coupons to pay for the lawsuit.
Sigh (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it obvious that I'm not exactly impressed with this? Register initially pointed his domain to a "coming soon" page when he registered his domain, and they should have put that they would do this in their contract, fair enough. Is that worthy of a lawsuit? Hell no. Is that worthy of hundreds of thousands of dollars in "damages"? Hell no.
Re:Sigh (Score:3, Insightful)
This guy probably saw this as a way to make some easy money. Yup, his free $12,5k is costing the company over $600k. Guess who will pay for all that in the end?
Now ISPs will either remove these 'under construction' pages or be more specific about them in their contracts. Watch for the next leech who sues his ISP for not providing an 'under construction' page resulting in a DNS error message. Sigh. I am beginning to appreciate my own country's legal system more a
Re:Sigh (Score:2)
"NY Supreme Court" can be misleading (Score:5, Informative)
Re:"NY Supreme Court" can be misleading (Score:3, Informative)
If that is the case, what are the names for the appeal and "supreme" courts in NY?
Re:"NY Supreme Court" can be misleading (Score:2)
*du-dum*!
i really don't mean to be anti-us (Score:3, Insightful)
This is a real turn-off, it portrays Americans in a really bad light, I know your corporates are all like this but do you the people need to be to?
Re:i really don't mean to be anti-us (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:i really don't mean to be anti-us (Score:2, Interesting)
That's the lawyers fault? Funny, I make that the fault of the people for allowing such a law to exist. Change it if you don't like it.
Re:i really don't mean to be anti-us (Score:3, Interesting)
Nice idea, but in the real world lawyers have a lot more influence in shaping laws than regular people do.
Having been living in the UK for 5 years now, I see a lot more of the US-style ads encouraging people to think of reasons to sue somebody. It's a process that feeds itself, the more successful they are, the more they are able to twist the system to suit their needs.
Re:i really don't mean to be anti-us (Score:3, Insightful)
There seems to be loads of ads on the TV now - "have you had an accident recently that wasn't your fault? Mrs Briggs of Smothersby broke her hip when a circus elephant went on the rampage, and she was awarded 57p!"
Re:i really don't mean to be anti-us (Score:2)
Claims are capped based on the long term damage and usually an offer comes in quickly at the lower end of the cap. I believe an ankle is 5000-15000, but again, this is for physical, verifiable damage rather than that amorphous 'it hurt me in ways that are hard to describe' and Dr Evil-like numbers.
It's like those estimates of companies that lose thousands thr
Re:i really don't mean to be anti-us (Score:4, Insightful)
If all they see in society and the media is spin, profit over ethics and threats (I'll sue you). Where the amount of money you have is generally the only relevent measure of somebody's value or 'worth'. Where everything you ever see, hear or read is distorted in some manner by these forces.
How do you expect people to behave differently?
Here in the UK things are nearly as bad. I personally reckon the BBC is probably the only thing that has stopped us decending to the unfortunate state the US has found itself in.
So next time you hear of a little thieving toe-rag (oops, sorry, I meant underprivaleged young man who has fallen to peer-pressure) coming out with the usual excuses ('I brought it off a man in a pub', 'I was threatened by the way the old man ran away from me so I kicked his head in' etc..) blame the spin doctors and barristers.. The criminaly are just learning from the masters.
Our lives are now nothing more than manipulation, external and internal.
Re:i really don't mean to be anti-us (Score:3, Insightful)
I would have to disagree with that.
1. In the UK, punitive damages are very rarely awarded. So you only get compensated for your actual provable costs probably something like 95% of the time. So, awards are typically something like 20-30% of what US awards for similar incidents are. (I don't have actual figures, but my impression from widely reported cases suggests that is true).
2. It doesn't cost a fortune to defend an action. As a small company owner,
Stupid lawsuits by the few... (Score:4, Interesting)
It is a tiny minority of Americans that file stupid lawsuits.
Americans laugh at these idiots too.
Frequently, the media portrays the lawsuits as idiotic, but when you dig into the details and hear the other side it is not so idiotic. Case in point, the famous case of the old women suing McDonald's for the hot coffee spilled on her. Stupid lawsuit until you read the full story behind it. That McDonald's coffee was the hottest in the industry. That McDonald's coffee temperature was on the "knee of the curve" where a few degrees made the difference between a minor burn and a 3rd degree burn. The women received 3rd degree burns and had to go to a hospital. By pushing their coffee temperature to an extreme, well beyond industry practice, McDonald's created a hazard. The lawsuit is not so stupid in that context.
The case sited in this story does sound stupid, but I would like to hear the whole story before I judge.
Re:Stupid lawsuits by the few... (Score:2)
I agree that sometimes lawsuits are required to force companies to change their behaviour. However, this lawsuit was, IMHO, stupid, because of the sum that was paid out (can't remember the exact figure, but it was huge).
I was in NY a few weeks ago (I live in Europe), and after two days I started taking pictures of warning labels, because they were stupid. The reason for these retarded warning labels is obviously the retarded lawsuits.
Some Examples:
"WAR
Re:Stupid lawsuits by the few... (Score:2, Troll)
Re:Stupid lawsuits by the few... (Score:2)
Third Degree Burns
"Third-degree burns affect the epidermis, dermis and hypodermis, causing charring of skin or a translucent white color, with coagulated vessels visible just below the skin surface. "
You were saying? Maybe you should look into this case, in fact, the lady DID receive third degree burns, had to have skin grafts on her genitals, and was hospitalized for something like 6 months. All she asked McDonalds for was medical exp
Whoa.... (Score:2)
As to the damages - she sued for MEDICAL EXPENSES and the jury went above and beyond. She stated herself that she was shocked at the award and it was later reduced. Note that she attempted to settle with them before suing - she simply wanted her medical expenses taken care of and they refused.
Yes, she should have assumed the liquid was hot but the people serving it out of a wi
Re:i really don't mean to be anti-us (Score:2)
why to sue? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:why to sue? (Score:2)
Re:why to sue? (Score:2)
You could definetly argue that someone visiting your website and seeing that could be upset enough to not visit the site again, even if it wasn't hosted by the purchaser of the domain.
However, this does seem like a rediculous lawsuit, although the settlement is also fruity. 5 bucks off of an overpriced domain renewal?
Oh, and don't buy this crap about RCO
Re:why to sue? (Score:2)
Won the law suit? (Score:5, Insightful)
Lawyer gets : $642,500
Re:Won the law suit? (Score:2, Funny)
*ducks*
both?
Now if you would have included register.com into that question, it would have been _really_ tricky...
Re:Won the law suit? (Score:3)
You get $5.00 off your next domain registration with them. Since they charge $35.00 a year for a
Register.com didn't settle out of court. They paid off the other sides lawyers to make them go away. I've got a feeling that when settlement negotiations started, the main bone of contention was how much register.com was going to pay in legal fees. Neither side cared about the consum
Re:Won the law suit? (Score:2)
First of all, you usually get a coupon or special or some such crap and only pay 20.
So for your 20 you get:
Free webmail. Free REALLY GREAT webmail with incredible spam blocking protection. Best there is in my opinion
Completely control of your DNS. You can edit your authoritative DNS servers any way you like.
Ability to set MX
Ability to create aliases and point them wherever
Ability to create A records and point them wherever.
Ability to point aliases at sub director
Re:Won the law suit? (Score:2, Insightful)
Blockquote:
Not that I approve of the legalistic way in which many things seem to work in the US, but consider this: At least the lawyers did real work to earn the money. All that most of the others did was 'board' a pre-existing suit out of opportunistic reasons.
The lawyers' fee does seem extravagant, but again, they take the burden and the risk. My point being: don't complain about the opportunistic behaviour of others, they are merely human too. (Y
Locking innovation down... (Score:4, Interesting)
Presumably all the company will do is add a clause to their terms and conditions that allows them to explicitly do this anyway.. But tying up every new attempt to use the technology in clauses and legalese is hardly going to free people to experiment...
Probably a good idea to exclude yourself.. (Score:3)
Yes! Let's agree to agree on things you never agreed on in the first place! Not that this is NOT worded in quite the same way as their current services agreement words it (which includes a 30 day period in which you can up and leave if they change the services agreement); it would seem that this class action settlement overrides such common sense provisions. Nasty!
The remedy seems worse than the disease.
Re:Probably a good idea to exclude yourself.. (Score:2)
By taking 5 dollars, you are being party to an unnecessary and frivolos (sp?) lawsuit, I would not take that cash.Feels like taking stolen money.This opt-out thing is painful though, I would have preferred an opt-in. And on top of that you have to agree to their new all inclusive service agreement (though I don't know how legal such a contract is ).
Funniest thing is that this person posted it on slashdot. Boy he does have an axe to grind agains
$5 and waive all rights, or keep the rights? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:$5 and waive all rights, or keep the rights? (Score:2)
Sue the Lawyers! (Score:5, Insightful)
And the lawyers wonder why we want the vast majority of them boiled in oil?
Oooohhhh Ahhhhhh my domain name pointed to a shitty "coming soon" page for two days!! The humanity!! I want to go bitch slap that guy.
Object to the Attorney's Fees (Score:5, Interesting)
See Sec. VII (C) of the linked document for reference.
RDC actually sends me coupons for more than $5 to entice me to keep using their service. This is pretty much the same thing. So they're effectively paying me nothing, paying the plaintiff $12.5K and paying the lawyers $650K.
I Object!
Re:Object to the Attorney's Fees - Mod Up (Score:4, Informative)
C. IF YOU WANT TO OBJECT TO THE SETTLEMENT, BUT STILL BE A PART OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS.
If you do not request exclusion from the Settlement Class, you may object to any aspect of the proposed Settlement, including the fairness of the settlement, the attorneys' fees and costs or the adequacy of Plaintiff or Class Counsel or Notice, by filing and serving a written objection. Your written objection must state the case name and number ((Zurakov v. Register.com, Case No. 01-600703), the grounds for your objection and your full name and address, and your objection must be filed with the Clerk of the Court, 60 Centre Street, New York, NY, 10007 with a copy to Counsel. SUCH OBJECTIONS MUST BE RECEIVED NO LATER THAN OCTOBER 14, 2003. If you mail an objection to the Settlement, then you bear the risk of any problems with the mails. Such objections will be considered at the Settlement Hearing (see section VIII below), at which you may appear if you wish.
The Cost (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The Cost (Score:2)
Are we missing something here? (Score:4, Informative)
However, the article is published on register.com's own website, and I get a feeling that we're only getting one side of the story. Nowhere does it explain how he was possibly harmed by this redirecting. A quote on another site seems to point to something else going on -
Michael Zurakov, the lead plaintiff in the suit, which has yet to be certified as a class, claims it took him several months to stop his Web address -- Laborzionist.org -- from redirecting to the "Coming Soon" page.
No more details on why it took that long, but if it was the case that it took several months until he was actually able to use what he'd paid for then it might put a different slant on the story.
Re:Are we missing something here? (Score:5, Informative)
The Land of Opportunity (Score:4, Insightful)
Opt Out? (Score:3, Interesting)
I think that would be a violation of your legal rights. So who's going door to door to see if anyone ever used register.com to allow them to opt out in case they wish to bring their own lawsuit?
Law.com article about it: (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=10510282390
Apparently he was unable to change it to direct it to his website for several months after registering it.
I suspect that register.com may have shot themselves in the foot by claiming that the contract did not explicitly give Mr Zurakov
exclusive control over the site. The judge did not agree, saying that if if it wasn't explicit in the contract 'to register' a site should give you more than just a listing in whois.
Register.com should have just admitted that something went wrong with their DNS assignment system and settled out of court. They probably could have gotten away with $5000 or so.
As a register.com customer... (Score:2, Flamebait)
How? (Score:2)
I've been poking around the Register.com site and can't find anything about the settlement or the opt out. Has anyone else found it yet?
Other news: "Register.com increases fees (Score:2)
I'm part of the class... (Score:2)
Re:Harm? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the harm is that register.com can use these coming-soon-websites to get advertising revenue by putting adds on 'property' (the domain) they don't own.
Re:Harm? (Score:3, Interesting)
So does this mean that once a house is sold, the realtor must immediately take down their sign rather than leaving it up for a week advertising their name with the "SOLD" sticker across it? Now *there's* a class action waiting to happen!
Re:Harm? (Score:2)
Re:Harm? (Score:3, Interesting)
I did it for them on my new house. Nobody gets to advertise on my property. I wouldn't let my barber carve his logo into my scalp, either.
Register.Com's 'coming soon' page is a garish, crowded, visual assault. Nobody would want that thing on a web site that they paid for.
BN
Re:And I thought suing for spilt coffee was insane (Score:4, Informative)
The woman sued because the coffee was simply too hot. It was hot enough to instantaneously destory skin, flesh and muscle.
The woman who spilt it was hospitalized for 8 days and suffered 3rd degree burns on 6 percent of her body.
Sunny Dubey
Re:And I thought suing for spilt coffee was insane (Score:2)
Next you'll be saying Slashdotters should read the article before posting.
Re:And I thought suing for spilt coffee was insane (Score:3, Funny)
I decide to carry this dangerous item using my genitalia. Being a moron, I crush the relatively fragile carrier with my thighs and spill this acid all over myself. Rather than being able to wash this stuff off and avoiding sexual pleasure for a week, I have to be hospitalized.
Do I get to sue als
Re:And I thought suing for spilt coffee was insane (Score:3, Informative)
That temperature is _not_ high enough to "instantaneously destory skin, flesh and muscle". And it will _never_ produce 3rd degree burns.
It will be unpleasant, yes. It will cause minor damage, yes. But the horror story about instantaneously destroying flesh is so much bulls**t, it could fertilize a few acres.
You _could_ destroy flesh by holding
idiot (Score:2)
Re:Frivolous McDonald's Lawsuit (Score:2)
Sure, if you spill coffee on your lap you don't expect it to be pleasant, but you don't expect to get third degree burns requiring skin grafts either. McDonalds knew people were being hurt by coffee that was much hotter than would reasonably be expecte
Re:Frivolous McDonald's Lawsuit (Score:2)
Yes, they made a point with this case, but the sheer amount of money she got was ridiculous. And it also opened the gateway for
Re:Frivolous McDonald's Lawsuit (Score:2)
http://tinyurl.com/muws
Oh, a usenet post. Then it must be true!Re:Frivolous McDonald's Lawsuit (Score:2)
excerpted from ATLA fact sheet. (C)1995, 1996 by Consumer Attorneys of California
Re:Frivolous McDonald's Lawsuit (Score:2)
Link to the whole business: http://tinyurl.com/muws [tinyurl.com]
Also, the vehicle wasn't moving - she was in the passenger's seat and it was stationary. The cup was between her legs to grip it while she took the cap off
Re:It was entirely frivolous (Score:2)
During the investigation the hottest other coffee they could find served by McDonald's competitors was 20 degrees colder.
People are used to handling hot liquids, but there's Hot and then there's Damn Hot.
People expect coffee to be hot and you'd expect it to hurt if you spilt it over yourself. However the extra twenty degrees that the McDonal
Re:Corporate Justice? (Score:2)
That makes sense especially in a case like this.If they don't put a note like that in there it means that somebody can use this settlement as a basis for further lawsuits, something along the lines of "they made a mistake , admitted it by settling but did not pay me enough"