Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government Spam The Internet News

Spammer Sued Under EU Law 102

Posted by Zonk from the good-day-for-clean-inboxes dept.
IngramJames writes "A British businessman has successfully sued a company who sent him a spam email. The case was settled out of court, so is not binding, but it's promising that the spammers had to cough up £300 for a single email! It's being reported (in a much more readable way) on The Register and the BBC." From the BBC article: "Three years ago the EU passed an anti-spam law, the directive on privacy and telecommunications, which gave individuals the right to fight the growing tide of unwanted e-mail by allowing them to claim damages."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Spammer Sued Under EU Law More

Spammer Sued Under EU Law

Comments Filter:

  • Can't wait! (Score:1, Interesting)

    by drewzhrodague ( 606182 )
    Can't wait to be able to sue spammers from here in Pittsburgh. There isn't much we can do, other than track spam, and ask them to stop. Lots of spam that I see comes from Russia, or China, and there isn't much that can be done about it. THe biggest majority of those I get are zipfile attachments with some bogus message -- viruses or whatnot. I'd like a procmail script that turns each spam message into a unique lawsuit -- any takers?
    • Since the law has been in force for 3 years I hope companies & individuals alike who are protected by the law (EU affiliated countries) will consider their spam retroactively and start sueing the hell out of all the American spammers.
      Not clear wether this law can reach the Asian spammers.

      Too bad our own government (the US that is) wimped out and decided not to protect us from them.

      -Crossing my fingers the EU will kill the spammers

  • Nice job... (Score:3, Informative)

    by tlacuache ( 768218 ) on Thursday December 29, 2005 @09:42AM (#14357945)
    This is the kind of thing I like to see. It's time we start holding some of these companies who use spam, spyware, adware, etc. responsible. I hope Texas' suit against Sony is successful, too.
    • Oh crap, TEXAS?

      The guy'll be doing the airdance before the first May flowers push up out of the ground.

    • Re:Nice job... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by LiquidCoooled ( 634315 )
      Suppose you own a company, Tlacuache Inc.

      If I decided to commission a detailed spam campaign on your behalf (but without your knowledge - lets call it a 'gift' from the members of my botnet).

      How could you prove you DIDN'T instigate the run, and how could you prove its not your fault?

      Do you enjoy giving your money away?
      This fine hopefully won't set off a trend.
      • That's a point well taken. Perhaps the better solution, then, and more effective than lawsuits, is to continue developing anti-spam filters until their effectiveness reaches the point where it is no longer profitable to spam? If we could get the technology to the point where spam never reaches human eyes, these guys would have to come up with something else.
      • Ah now, play nice...

        In my unprofessional experience, most of the "I DIDN'T KNOW!" lawsuits or big news stories concerning spam invovle a reseller program of some sort.

        Now, another thing I'm seeing more recently are people getting updates from websites with maybe a few links for advertising (or requests) for advertising due to people forgetting to turn off the 'email me' feature on a website when they register. Thats technically an opt-in, but they still end up complaining and screaming SPAM!
        • Thats technically an opt-in, but they still end up complaining and screaming SPAM!

          It's still hard to be sympathetic.

          Perhaps those companies shouldn't default the checkbox to checked, and/or sneak the checkbox in at the very bottom in a smaller typeface? Obviously the user has every opportunity to stop the emails before they start, but that doesn't neccessarily cure the company sending them of any blame.
          • I agree that the checkboxes shouldn't be checked...

            At the same time, I absolutely hate the websites that switch that option on whenever their TOS changes or when they feel like it.

            Now, I've had friends that think they're important when they get email and after a year or so, they complain very loudly. The problem is, they cause the problems themselves because they check every box they can just to get email.
        • Something you forget to mention is that sometimes these companies will "Reset the customer preferences" periodically, defaulting everything to be on.

          I have had advertisements from serveral companies where I spcifically turned the preference for mail off at time I signed up, only to have adveristing from them a few months later. I seem to remember Yahoo doing this a few years ago.

          Further (purposefully) complicating things is that sometimes the wording on the opt-out is tricky. Sometimes you click on a box th

        • Re:Nice job... (Score:4, Insightful)

          by rcw-work ( 30090 ) on Thursday December 29, 2005 @10:42AM (#14358252)
          Thats technically an opt-in

          If the default is to receive email - the user has to go out of their way to not receive email - exactly how is that opt-in?

          Clue: If you have a mailing list of people who don't really want to be on it, it probably isn't an opt-in mailing list.

        • Now, another thing I'm seeing more recently are people getting updates from websites with maybe a few links for advertising (or requests) for advertising due to people forgetting to turn off the 'email me' feature on a website when they register. Thats technically an opt-in, but they still end up complaining and screaming SPAM!

          No, that's technically an opt-out. Anyone can anonymously subscribe anyone else to such a list, providing a means to untraceably mailbomb the victim of your choice. The unwanted ema

          • While this is technically opt out, I don't believe that it would be legally unsolicited. I thought that having a prior business relationship with a company gives them a lot more leeway in being able to communicate with you. More importantly, in my limited experience companies that have an opt in/out button that is actually functional to any degree will actually respect unsubscribe requests.

      • Re:Nice job... (Score:1, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        well the first and most obvious requirement for a lawsuit that you refer to would be proof that you hired the company.

        it isnt exactly a new concept.

        just cause it involves the "interweb" doesnt make it a new concept, doesnt make it a new situation that must be handled differently, you hired a company to break the law for you, that is a crime (or civil offense depending on what law)

      • How could you prove you DIDN'T instigate the run, and how could you prove its not your fault?

        Suppose that instead of sending spam, your competitor posts paper notices in parts of the city where it's illegal. How do you prove that you DIDN'T do it, and how could you prove that it's not your fault?

        Or perhaps they buy mass-media time, showing photoshopped pictures of how proud your company is that they enjoy killing puppies for sport. How do you prove that you DIDN'T do it, and that you don't really kill pup
        • Put this in perspective, we are talking about an insigificant electronic message coming from ANYWHERE in the world randomly and taking up fractions of a second of processing time and which costs at most fractions of a pence to send and receive anywhere worldwide.

          We are not talking about anything as serious as you mention, of fucking course the police would investigate a murder properly and not be thrown by a calling card.

          The differences don't even need clarifying suffice to say I most certainly don't think
          • we are talking about an insigificant electronic message coming from ANYWHERE in the world randomly and taking up fractions of a second of processing time and which costs at most fractions of a pence to send and receive anywhere worldwide.

            Lets see...

            Sorting the approx 20-30 real mails I get from the approx 5000 messages that people attempt to drop in my account each day.. Takes about an hour a day, which equals a loss in productivity of approx 10-12%. With my hourly rate that equals to at least 60-70 euro in
          • The differences don't even need clarifying suffice to say I most certainly don't think what you suggest

            They do need clarifying, and I wasn't actually saying that you think what I suggest, but that *YOUR OWN LOGIC* dictates the conclusion that all laws are bad because you can frame someone.

            Arguing triviality just tells me that you can't actually refute the logic without admitting you were wrong. It's trivial to forge someone's signature (much easier than creating a botnet, as a matter of fact). Does this m
        • Suppose that instead of sending spam, your competitor posts paper notices in parts of the city where it's illegal. How do you prove that you DIDN'T do it, and how could you prove that it's not your fault?

          I wish. Then the company I work for would actually get some advertising, and hopefully, some publicity out of it. And it's all free, except for fighting it in court. As it is, my boss doesn't advertise very much or very effectively.

          I think that the problem with spam is that it's so cheap and so untracable,
      • If your company makes money by selling to the spammed people you should be held responsible.

        Do you really think that the company which sells Viagra - I forgot the name - doesn't know through wich channels (legal and illegal) their product is sold? It's a medicine for *** sake.

        It is fairly easy as a company to protect yourself from liability. Denounce the companies which sell your product in illegal ways.

        If you sold it to a distributor who unknowing to you sold it trough spamming you can always sue him.

        Follo
        • Why should a company stop selling goods based upon email referals?

          How would they know the sale came from a spam run, or from a friendly word of mouth email, or from a slashvertisement or anywhere?

          Get a spam filter and stop whining.
          • Quote "Why should a company stop selling goods based upon email referrals?"

            I have no problem with companies selling trough referals as long as they know that the referrer is a reputable company or person itself.
            What is it with all this irresponsibility. Don't you care that those companies clog up the internet and annoy people with no end for a quick buck.

            The only ones responsible for spam are the companies making money of it and they are the only ones who can stop it.

      • If I was a competitor, or somehow had an axe to grind and wanted to do this, I'd have to think very carefully because:

        Whatever else happens, I'm generating publicity for the company, they may end up doing very well out this spam on their behalf.

        If I tried to make the spam unappealing to negate the above effect, it'd be more obvious that it was a bogus campaign done without their knowledge.

        Of course, the intelligent ones out there reading this will be sure to think of clever ideas that look like they w

      • How could you prove you DIDN'T instigate the run, and how could you prove its not your fault?

        I would look to see whether you actually benefitted financially from the run. If you had an uptick in orders but also a lot of complaints about spam, then you should check that out and disclaim the spam. Heck, you should stop taking orders from whatever link the spam has. If you made money off of it, that's a good sign you helped or at least did not stop the spam invasion.
      • Your ISP can prove you didn't send the e-mails.
      • How could you prove you DIDN'T instigate the run, and how could you prove its not your fault?

        This is the part where they go through the company records, company bookkeeping to see if there's a money trail. Lying about it to the court would be a serious offense, so I doubt many would falsely try that defense. In the end, it is exactly the same as when the RIAA say "I saw these files coming from your Internet connection", the standard is "preponderance of evidence".

        If the company was falsely accused, *they* w

  • But... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by voice_of_all_reason ( 926702 ) on Thursday December 29, 2005 @09:43AM (#14357950)
    How much will it cost you in:

    Court fees?
    Lost wages from taking days off of work to go to court?
    Lawyer's fees? (Well, you can save on that by getting a season of Law and Order on DVD, I guess...)

    Great in principle, but I fear the day is theirs :(

    • Re:But... (Score:3, Informative)

      by Rinzwind ( 870478 )
      Courtfees where payed by the spammer and totalled a staggering of 30 pounds. And there was not a lawyer present.

    • Not a lot, in the UK (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Flying pig ( 925874 ) on Thursday December 29, 2005 @09:51AM (#14357982)
      This is the UK Small Claims Court. I think it currently costs about 80UKP to make a claim, scaling to 10% of the amount claimed. You do not need a lawyer, you can fill in the forms yourself and ask the clerk for advice. The court is fairly informal, run by a kind of junior judge for the most part, who is allowed to employ considerable common sense ("equity"). So it might, possibly, take a day of your time which may be worth it to deal with a very annoying spammer. Oh, and if they decide to ignore your case...summary judgement against them.

      What's more, it works. I was involved in a case in which a company sued a friend claiming payment for work they had not, in fact, done. Although we screwed up mildly on the paperwork the judge in the case decided that did not matter and gave judgement in our favor. The other side walked out feeling very upset, but realised the cost of going to a higher court to try again would be much greater than the amount claimed. So they gave up.

      • >I think it currently costs about 80UKP

        It currently costs 30GBP for amounts claimed up to 300GBP. Mr Roberts deliberately kept the damages claimed at 300GBP so that he could pay the cheapest fees, as I heard him explain on the radio the other day.

        The maximum costs for the small claims court is 120GBP, which would allow you to claim up to the maximum claim amount of 5,000GBP.

        .
      • Sounds great! Anyone know if it's this reasonable across the pond?

        My only personal insight into the American justice system is when I casually asked the bailiff why they don't just use appointments for the speeding ticket judge instead of forcing you to wait in line the whole day. His response: "Duh, people just plead guilty in the mail if they know they'll lose a day's pay to fight it."
        • That doesn't make much sense. The potential increase of your insurance from pleading guilty to a speeding violation will definitely be more than whatever 95% of the population gets paid in a day.
      • "I think it currently costs about 80UKP to make a claim"

        Wrong. The cost depends on the amount being claimed.

        To claim less than £300 it only costs £30 which is obviously why the guy only tried to sue for just under that amount -- if he lost he'd only loose the £30, rather than £50 quid for the next level or higher.

        Since it's the small claims court the costs are limited, generally you only have to pay expenses (which are limited) if the judge considers a party to be behaving unreasonab
        • You are correct, but your social skills (even on Slashdot) perhaps leave a little to be desired.

          When somebody prefixes a remark with "I think..." implying they are not sure, and suggests that the amount is claim-dependent, prefixing your reply with "Wrong" is bad manners.

          I'm making this point because we've been recruiting this year, and one of the questions I always get asked about candidates is "are they safe to talk to clients?"

          I am assuming you are in England because you use the vernacular ("£50 qu

          • "prefixing your reply with "Wrong" is bad manners."

            Maybe. Unfortunately it's fairly impossible to convey emotion via a purely textual medium so I would advise against getting too offended -- no malice was meant.

            "but not a native speaker"

            An incorrect assumption.

            "£50 or 50 quid but NOT £50 quid"

            No, it was just a typo.
      • Sounds very similar to the approach taken in the US to go after Junk Faxers. TCPA stipulates for $500/fax received, tripled if the sender had explicit knowledge prior to sending that it was unwanted by the recipient. Fits into small claims in most states. Process = send demand letter, threaten with suit, file small claims suit, show up for single court date. Filing allows you to subpeona phone records, if needed. No lawyer necessary. Many times settlement occurs once they're served. It would work wonder
      • I am picturing Judge Judy in "Tech Guy vs. Evil Spammer"

        Chances are good at least one of them will have an IQ above 100, so it should be good.
      • The real thing here is that this should have never reached the small claims court in first place.

        When the EU legislation was ratified two years ago the Information Commissioner was given the authority to enforce it in the UK. They initially put some forms on their website. IIRC the forms wehre in pdf which you had to fill in and mail conventionally. No do not laugh, we are talking Civil Service the UK way in the days of Antonio Bliar. Even that ended up being too much for them and they took the stuff of the
    • Court fees?
      30 pounds, paid by spammer

      Lost wages from taking days off of work to go to court?
      Owns is own business

      Lawyer's fees?
      He didn't hire one

      I'm more curious as to how you quantify "damages" caused by spamming. Three hundred pounds may be logical limit - small claims - but what's keeping someone from suing for more?
    • Lost wages from taking days off of work to go to court?

      Well, I don't know about you, but my company pays me while I'm on holiday, and I don't get to have the money instead if I don't use the days...

  • And from the article... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Misch ( 158807 ) on Thursday December 29, 2005 @09:45AM (#14357959) Homepage
    If you'd RTFA, you'd see that this was an out of court settlement. The guy didn't win in court, he settled.
    • Where does it say anywhere that he won in court?

      It says in the second sentence of the summary,
      "The case was settled out of court, so is not binding..."
    • Which is exactly what the summary says.
    • If you'd RTFA, you'd see that this was an out of court settlement. The guy didn't win in court, he settled.
      - I am sure many people who don't give a damn about SPAM look at this and think ... man I could make some good money. It sets a good (IMO) precedent for people to sue them. In many countries there is a small claims court that costs very little. If people can get a few hundred maybe a thousand $currency$ then they might be inclined to sue spammers. How can SPAM be stopped? $$.

      Let's sue spammers out of b
    • No, he won and then accepted a settlement. From TFA: "Roberts took the company to court in October and won, with damages to be decided at a hearing on 4 January 2006. Just prior to Xmas, however, the company offered £300 as a final settlement which Mr Roberts agreed to."

    • Re: decided in or out of court? (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      The article is self-contradictory as to whether the case was settled in or out of court.

      It both says that the judge ruled in his favour (as the defendant did not defend himself) AND it it says the claim was settled out of court.

      I assume the former is correct (which in all likelihood it is, as the spammers probably did not go to court or otherwise try to defend the action against them).

      At this point, the claim would be beyond sewttling out of court.

      • Re: decided in or out of court? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Conor Turton ( 639827 ) on Thursday December 29, 2005 @12:49PM (#14359190)
        The article is self-contradictory as to whether the case was settled in or out of court.

        I'll assume you're not British and not familiar with Small Claims Courts. The company was found guilty. There was to be a later hearing to determine the amount of compensation awarded. The company offered a figure before the later hearing and the claimant accepted it.

        Also at Small Claims Court in the UK, if one of the parties doesn't turn up to the hearing, judgement is automatically awarded against them whether they're the claimant or the defendent. Which is bloody brilliant because it means that if a company in the South East of England screws me, I can take them to a local Small Claims Court, which is over 300 miles away from them, and if they don't turn up, I've won. If they don;t pay, I can then go back for a warrant, have bailiffs seize their property (at a cost of £100+ per time) and auction it, returning time and time again until not only is the judgement satisfied but the bailiffs fees too.

  • How will it be paid..? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Zwets ( 645911 ) <jan DOT niestadt AT gmail DOT com> on Thursday December 29, 2005 @09:46AM (#14357962) Homepage
    £300 worth of all-natural herbal Viagra?

  • The Messed with the Wrong Man (Score:3, Informative)

    by putko ( 753330 ) on Thursday December 29, 2005 @09:48AM (#14357972) Homepage Journal
    From the Register Article: ...
    Roberts, who runs his own Internet business as well as the Jersey and Guernsey country code domains, used his legal know-how to apply EU legislation to a UK company, Media Logistics.

    It is believed to be the first time the legislation has been used in the UK, and could open the doors for thousands of other cases.

    Back in August, Roberts received several marketing emails from Media Logistics. They were just a few of the many thousands that he and every Internet user receive each year, except that Mr Roberts tracked the email back to the company using its IP address.

    Recognising that as a UK company it came under the EU law, he sent a letter demanding an apology, damages and the name of the company that had given Media Logistics his email address. The company apologised but refused his two other requests.

    Unfortunately for the company, Roberts, 37, is a recognised internet expert and was studying for a law degree, which he has just been awarded...
  • I have not seen any change in the level of spam...except maybe that it has increased. With all the laws, lawsuits, etc I still get 1000 spams a day. Spam protection works, but is not perfect. I have gotten to the point where I have hidden email accounts that are receive only if I know you status. Joel
  • You can only sue in the small claim court for actual damages suffered. They generally hold that wasting your time is not claimable as damages - actions such as this will only succeed if you can show that you have lost time in the course of a buisness and then suffered a financial cost. Also you generally cannot set a precedent in the small claims court, even if you do win. For those interested further the website for the court is www.moneyclaim.gov.uk

  • Male Enhancement Industry Dead (Score:3, Funny)

    by ranton ( 36917 ) on Thursday December 29, 2005 @09:55AM (#14358005)
    How will the male enhancement industry survive now? I dont think that anyone actually wants those stupid emails in their mailbox, so they will have to try another marketing scheme.

    Too bad, so sad.
  • ...for companies that buy Databases for their mass email campaigns. The only companies that I know of that do this have low success rates, and a very irate Database.
  • The question must be asked:
    Did the amount of time and energy spent on this case roughly equate with the settlement?

    I am all for suing spammers, but let's make it real money, say £300,000.00?
  • The EU sues everyone. I'll be impressed when someone in China gets their ass sued for spamming.
  • From TFA

    Roberts took the company to court in October and won, with damages to be decided at a hearing on 4 January 2006. Just prior to Xmas, however, the company offered £300 as a final settlement which Mr Roberts agreed to. He is due to receive the cheque tomorrow.

    I don't get it. The guy won in court and had an excellent chance to set a legal precedent, and settled for just £300? I don't say that he could get more in court but it would make a great victory in the anti-spam war. Why waste it

    • From TFA

      Roberts took the company to court in October and won, with damages to be decided at a hearing on 4 January 2006. Just prior to Xmas, however, the company offered £300 as a final settlement which Mr Roberts agreed to. He is due to receive the cheque tomorrow.

      I don't get it. The guy won in court and had an excellent chance to set a legal precedent, and settled for just £300? I don't say that he could get more in court but it would make a great victory in the a
    • This is Europe, you don't get to rip anyone for stupid E-Mails, you have to prove the cost it brought you in some way. There are so many lawsuits, that state :"In America you are being paid for stupidity". This is a calm lawsuit. But the spammer must have had enourmous costs for the Lawyer and the Court, that is expencive too. I'd guess the whole thing costs the spammer something around 2000 USD. You don't want that on a daily basis.
    • Because it only cost him £30 to file the claim and he was able to pursue it without legal representation. Had it gone to a higher court, the costs would have spiralled and had he lost, he could end up with not only his huge legal bill to pay but the defendants. This way, he's managed to see if it works and it's cost him the price of a few gallons of petrol.

  • So WHO can I sue? (Score:3, Funny)

    by MrBandersnatch ( 544818 ) on Thursday December 29, 2005 @10:42AM (#14358253)
    Need more info for this exciting new European business opportunity :-

    1) Receive spam
    2) Sue the bastards.
    3) Profit!!

    With 2 years spam saved in my inbox (on another machine because eventually THAT became unmanagable) Im looking forward to this guys "spam kit". However Im wondering if Im only limited to sueing spamming companies...can I sue the services that have an open proxy, the ISPs that allow their customers to have an open proxy? Can I sue yahoo/hotmail for allowing their services to be used for spam. Oh the possibilities.....
    • The spammer was the cause of the problem, whereas your ISP and mail service provider probably take an active role in preventing spam (from being either received or sent by you).

      If you can find a lawyer who'll agree to take a shot at it, I'd much rather you sued the ultimate source of the spam rather than your ISP (even if that ISP is AOL. Well, maybe...)

      Oh, and I'm not sure when civil justice became a 'wrong'.
  • Spam, Spam, Spam, Bacon and Eggs and Spam. I suppose the Brits have gotten over there infatuation with it.
  • It seems that more and more spammers are using frivolous lawsuits against RBL maintainers. The AHBL The ABHL is one such recent victim of a lawsuit, in fact after two years of threats by the alledged spammer. In this case the litigant is acting pro se and is seeking outrageous damages (over 3 million). I have personally banned his ass at the ISP I work for --several times in fact when he moved his operations after being TOS'd.

    More information at the Abusive Hosts Blocking Lists' legal defense page [ahbl.org].
  • They actually served the company once for each e-mail sent - they spent hours cleaning out their inbox!
  • Its funny because internet brings new possibilities togather with a new threats like spam, content theft etc. Its fine if the law can fight against spam effectively, but ussually it can not( http://www.e-verdict.com/justice-system [e-verdict.com]). The spammer can sit and perform its dirty job from some undeveloped country where no any civilized law will reach him. The same works with content theft. If the server is in some country which is free of normal laws, the thiefs will flourish... How can we fight this new technolog

  • "Prior to December 2000, it was a little-known fact that some large Internet companies were blocking their customers from accessing spammers' Web sites. In fact, the two biggest companies which engaged in this practice, AboveNet and TeleGlobe, were blocking sites on a secret "blacklist" that included not only spammers, but sites selling spam software or doing business with spammers. (The Internet Billing Company, or IBill, was blacklisted once because some of their clients were spammers, even though IBill

    • There is nothing secret here.

      A version of RBL which included both Spammers and advertised targets was available as a BGP feed since days forgotten. As early as 1998.

      Simply, none is suicidal enough to use it except Teleglobe. At least noone that I know. I have considered its use in two jobs and have said "nope, do not smoke that stuff".

      Above used to run the service so no wonder they were using it themselves. Whatever people say about Paul Vixie he is a great believer in "Though Shalt Eat Ya Own Dogfood".

      Ther
  • Not a nasty company. An individual author. Too bad he's in Canada and I'm here in lowly US, I could use some extra money.

    I replied back to the email address I found on his website so I could warn him that somebody was sending out spam emails about his book, and he said that he sent it to me because my email address was on the internet. Stupid internet, always telling everybody about me.

    If you want to see the email chain, it is here [kalbzayn.com]

Slashdot Top Deals

Technology is dominated by those who manage what they do not understand.

Close