Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Spam Government The Courts Your Rights Online News

AOL Spam Case Dismissed Over Jurisdiction Problem 32

Posted by timothy from the approach-slowly-swing-fast dept.
An anonymous reader submits "AOL's suit against several Florida-based spammers has been dismissed by a federal judge in Virginia. The judge said the case was tossed because AOL failed to show that Virginia had jurisdiction over the case Apparently being HQ'd in VA and spamming VA residents isn't enough to sue the bastards in Virginia. AOL plans to appeal."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

AOL Spam Case Dismissed Over Jurisdiction Problem More

AOL Spam Case Dismissed Over Jurisdiction Problem

Comments Filter:
  • Nice to see that there is a burden of proof, even for a major corp like AOL/TW.

    It is too bad that AOL/TW is having to re-do the work, but things need to be done the right way.

    • Re:good (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Nasarius ( 593729 )
      This isn't about burden of proof at all. This is simply about which court has the authority to deal with the case.

      • Re:good (Score:2, Insightful)

        by BigBir3d ( 454486 )
        Not exactly. AOL/TW has to prove that it is worthwhile to be in the court system, as well as being in the proper jurisdiction. VA is the proper court, if AOL/TW had their ducks in a row. They didn't, and the judge called them on it. Now thay have to start over. I would have guessed something more like "bring me more proof by March 1st 2004" or something like.

  • Remember Amateur Action? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Bryant ( 25344 ) on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @09:52AM (#7844928) Homepage
    If you don't, refresh your memory here [spectacle.org]. OK? Good.

    Basically, a Tennessee postal inspector brought charges against a BBS in San Jose in a Tennessee court, and managed to get the BBS shut down because it violated Tennessee community standards. This, despite the fact that the BBS was located on the other side of the country. There was a lot of outrage at the time, for obvious reasons -- you don't want to hold an Internet site to the most restrictive standards found anywhere in the world.

    It seems to me that this AOL thing is just about the same. Indict the spammers in their home state; that's where they're located. It would be nice to hold them to the most restrictive standards possible, but it would also be kind of unfair.
    • The difference here is that spammers sent and their content to Virginia citizens. Their is a law in Virginia forbidding that specific type of business in Virginia.

      Someone in Tennessee would have to violate their community standards to seek out the content on the BBS. Those in Virginia didn't have that option.
    • There's a stark difference between a service that may be requested from out of state and something that is actively pushed to that state. The case of the Tennessee postal inspector sounds like a load of BS, and I bet the BBS would have won if they'd appealed. AOL is going after a company based in Florida that is doing business (possibly illegally or injuriously) in Virginia. There is an enormous body of caselaw supporting this, so I would be quite surprised if they lost their appeal.
      • Fortunately, you are not a judge. There is a substantial body of case law in most states on what constitutes doing business in those states, and how much active involvement is required to establish personal jurisdiction over an issue.

        There are what are called "long arm" statutes in most states that let states take jurisdiction under certain circumstances - like a foreign (i.e. out-of-state) business entity doing transactions in a state. However, just sending email, even spam doesn't count as that. Some

  • What are the addresses of these guys again? >:D
  • the defendant in question is not HQed in Virginia as our over zealous story poster would have us believe. They are in Florida.

    • Re:VA ? (Score:2, Informative)

      by jimi1283 ( 699887 )
      Wrong entirely over. You misunderstand the post. AOL is HQ'd in VA, and they are suing on behalf of VA residents who were spammed. The post states that the spammers are based in Florida. That is what the dispute is about, whether the case should be tried in Virginia or Florida.
  • I'm in Virginia. I sued people from out of state. I've won. I did all that in a Virginia state court.

    Someone should explain the "long arm" concept of law to hizzoner real fast.

    As much as I hate AOL, they did have a case to file in State court. My guess is that the judge just didn't wanna deal with it.
    • I'm in Virginia. I sued people from out of state. I've won. I did all that in a Virginia state court.

      So you either tagged them instate, they were doing business in Virginia, they consented to jurisdiction in VA, or they had a bad lawyer?

      Someone should explain the "long arm" concept of law to hizzoner real fast.

      Well, from what I gathered from the article and from my own understanding it sounds to me like he gets it. The spammers don't live in VA and did not purposely avail themselves of doing business
      • Well, from what I gathered from the article and from my own understanding it sounds to me like he gets it. The spammers don't live in VA and did not purposely avail themselves of doing business in VA, so they didn't meet the threshold for establishing personal jurisdiction, at least according to the judge. Maybe if he had specific knowledge that the crap he was sending out was headed for Virginia it might be different.

        They guy sent millions of SPAM to people all over the world. He couldn't reasonably exp
        • The spammers in the lawsuit were not dismissed. The technicians that operated the computers in Florida were dismissed. The technicians did not send any spam and did not take any actions in or aimed at Virginia.
  • Just file your case in federal court.. its related to interstate trade anyway.. *across* state boundaries..

    So why would you file suit in state x in the first place? Getting the Feds involved might help matters, as they have more teeth anyway.
    • The case was filed in a federal court. Federal courts have the same personal jurisdiction issues that state courts have, and that's what the court was ruling on.

      Whether you can file in federal or state court in this case is irrelevant to the fact that it's related to interstate trade. Federal courts can here cases they have subject matter jurisdiction over (i.e., federal laws) or where they have diversity of citizenship (people or corporations domiciled in different states) and the amount of damages cla
  • The judge said the case was tossed because AOL failed to show that Virginia had jurisdiction over the case Apparently being HQ'd in VA and spamming VA residents isn't enough to sue the bastards in Virginia. AOL plans to appeal.

    You can't sue someone under the laws of one state for actions committed in another. It's common sense. I'm a resident of Pennsylvania. I can't be compelled to comply with laws that are enacted by Ohio or New York.

    LK
    • Of course you can, so long as your actions are targetted at a member of that other state. For example, if state X and state Y had different legal ages for alcohol consumption (this occurs in Canadian provinces, not sure if any states are 21), and you knowingly sent a minor in state "X" booze, you might be charged across states.
  • This illustrates a growing inadequacy in our laws to cover internet crime. The widespread nature of the internet necessitates a new legal approach to maintain consistant rulings and treatment.
  • The spammers in the lawsuit were not dismissed. The technicians that operated the computers in Florida were dismissed. The technicians did not send any spam and did not take any actions in, or aimed at, Virginia. The guys who sent the spam are still listed on the lawsuit, and are still being prosecuted in Virginia.

    The press has done a great job of making a fool of AOL, but they did so by leaving out some very important details about the case.

Slashdot Top Deals

If you think nobody cares if you're alive, try missing a couple of car payments. -- Earl Wilson

Close