| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Tech |
| ISP Wins $1Bn Lawsuit Against Spammers |
| 2004-12-20 |
| ACK/NAK. Message sent. Message received. A federal judge has awarded an Internet service provider more than $1 billion in what is believed to be the largest judgment ever against spammers. Robert Kramer, whose company provides e-mail service for about 5,000 subscribers in eastern Iowa, filed suit against 300 spammers after his inbound mail servers received up to 10 million spam e-mails a day in 2000, according to court documents. U.S. District Judge Charles R. Wolle filed default judgments Friday against three of the defendants under the Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and the Iowa Ongoing Criminal Conduct Act. AMP Dollar Savings Inc. of Mesa, Ariz., was ordered to pay $720 million and Cash Link Systems Inc. of Miami, Fla., was ordered to pay $360 million. The third company, Florida-based TEI Marketing Group, was ordered to pay $140,000. "It's definitely a victory for all of us that open up our e-mail and find lewd and malicious and fraudulent e-mail in our boxes every day," Kramer said after the ruling. Kramer's attorney, Kelly Wallace, said he is unlikely to ever collect the judgment, which was made possible by an Iowa law that allows plaintiffs to claim damages of $10 per spam message. The judgments were then tripled under RICO. "We hope to recover at least his costs," Wallace said. There were no telephone listings for the three companies in Arizona and Florida. Nobody replied to an e-mail sent Saturday to Cash Link Systems. According to court documents, no attorneys for the defendants were present during a bench trial in November. The lawsuit continues against other named defendants. Laura Atkins, president of SpamCon Foundation, an anti-spamming organization based in Palo Alto, Calif., said she believed it was the largest judgment ever in an anti-spam lawsuit. "This is just incredible," she said. "I'm not aware of anything that's been over $100 million." Mr Kramer decided to fight the good fight for all of us. Thanks, bro. |
| Posted by:.com |
| #12 Me. |
| Posted by: Sawed Off Winchester 1894 2004-12-20 5:03:01 PM |
| #11 I'm sure it is more restricted, requiring (at the very least) a valid warrant for the fugitive. Is a bench warrant good enough? Does it have to be a criminal warrant? Who knows? Not me, for damn sure... And in the case of spammers, I don't much give a damn. Shoot the pricks on sight, if you want. "Wanted: Dead or Alive (prefer dead)" I won't complain. |
| Posted by: mojo 2004-12-20 1:01:10 PM |
| #10 Oops, posted before I saw you comment, Mojo. Are you sure it's that "loose"? In that scenario, heh, almost anything goes. Sure, after the fact, where someone gets excessive they can sue for rights violations, etc., but that may be too little, too late. I figure it has to be more restricted, but hell - I've been completely wrong before, so... |
| Posted by: .com 2004-12-20 11:57:48 AM |
| #9 Tony (UK) - Excellent question - one which did not occur to me when I posted last night. The legal status of bounty hunters has always been a bit murky - with the cops, in particular, trying to play it down (keep it that way) to discourage the idea. I believe bounty hunters are temporarily "deputized" by the paperwork to apprehend specific skippers (bail jumpers). IIUC, a Bail Bondsman is an officer of the Court with special responsibilities and is "empowered" to meet them with augmented power to arrest - one aspect being the authority to "deputize" the bounty hunter. That view is simplistic, I'm sure, and may be utterly wrong... I would imagine that the states have the power to place restrictions upon the Bondsman and bounty hunter, so it may vary quite a bit from state to state. Calling All Resident RB Legal Beagles!!! Please clarify precisely (heh) who can empower a bounty hunter? |
| Posted by: .com 2004-12-20 11:54:43 AM |
| #8 Tony: Bounty hunters are private contractors. They can go after anyone that somebody's willing to pay for. Usually that's a bail bondsman, but it's not a requirement. |
| Posted by: mojo 2004-12-20 11:50:46 AM |
| #7 Steve...In a manner reminiscent of Genghis Khan, I disabled it. |
| Posted by: Seafarious 2004-12-20 11:29:21 AM |
| #6 Mojo, Can bounty hunters in the US go after people for these damages? I've seen the reality TV shows where they go arrest someone who's jumped bail, but a percantage of a few hundred million is a different kettle of fish. |
| Posted by: Tony (UK) 2004-12-20 11:28:11 AM |
| #5 Go read the poll on the sidebar at this blog and decide for yourself..."What ancient form of execution would you LEAST prefer?" Emily, what happened to the "none of the above" button? I can't seem to find it. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2004-12-20 11:21:05 AM |
| #4 Two words: bounty hunters. |
| Posted by: mojo 2004-12-20 10:46:43 AM |
| #3 yep - buried alive.... |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-12-20 10:36:22 AM |
| #2 Go read the poll on the sidebar at this blog and decide for yourself..."What ancient form of execution would you LEAST prefer?" |
| Posted by: Seafarious 2004-12-20 10:32:02 AM |
| #1 The only question is which is a more painful death for spammers? Boiling or burning? |
| Posted by: N Guard 2004-12-20 1:01:37 AM |