Joepublic

Hi Folks,

I thought I would give a brief follow-up about the CA spam suits mentioned in a prior thread. The trial happened on June 18 as scheduled and the judge rendered his decision in the beginning of July. Four Defendants showed up, one did not (and defaulted) with three more having settled earlier, raising almost $40,000 for the Darfur Cookstove Project and the local chapter of Second Harvest (a food bank).

In short, we* won: Small claims court maximum judgments jointly and severally in all case against all remaining Defendants. For my cases that was: Azoogle, OfferWeb, SubscriberBASE (a.k.a. AdDrive), Livemercial and (via default) World Avenue USA (a.k.a. TheUseful, f/k/a Niutech).

All of these ad networks were sued because they were advertising using illegal UCE, specifically spam with false ‘From:’ lines were sent under multiple domain names by a spammer with a penchant for registering hundreds of throw-away domain names, using fake names and addresses to conceal their identity.

It is _legal_ in the US to advertise with spam. However, when Congress legalized spam, it did so with a bargain to the country -- spam was legalized but with the mandatory requirement of transparency and accountability. If one can't identify the sender of a Commercial Email (solicited or not), it's illegal, both under CAN-SPAM and California law. It is illegal to use spam sent with false or anonymously registered domain names. Using third party spammers will not get you around the law. You can delegate who clicks the "send" key, but you cannot delegate the duty to obey the law.


Joe

(*)I used "We" because in addition to myself there was another plaintiff with his own suits heard that day that also received judgments jointly against ValueClick and Media Breakaway (f/k/a OptInRealBig), who were also served at Ad-Tech. All of the appearing Defendants have filed appeals.

Jon

Show us proof that you actually donated the money and that you haven't just made false claims to seem like anything more than a scumbag and a rat.

__________________

engaged

congrats bro, you're a true hero, i only wish we had more of you trolling the internet, protecting our kids. congrats man, you're my hero!

Xrproto

Hey Joe, what's your email?

__________________
I can assure you I am as insane as the next man.

Joepublic

Hi Jon,
It sounds like you are raising two distinct issues, so let me break them down:

A) Proof that I "actually donated the money."

To be specific, the defendants made the donation directly to the charities. I simply verified that a donation was made. No money went to me. The Defendants get the tax deduction rather than me, but that was fine with me as long as the donation was made. That being said, it seems if you believe I'm just making "false claims" about the donation then anything _I_ present would still be subject to accusations of being false statements or forged documents. So after thinking a bit, it seems to me to be the best solution, that does not depend on you believing what I say is to contact Second Harvest yourself.

I don't know how high in the information path you want to start (so that you don't fear I'm giving you a fact contact person or phone number), so pick your own starting point:

• America's Second Harvest HQ for the national organization, where you will find the Local Chapter;
• Second Harvest Food Bank of Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties Local chapter, where you will find the Contact person;
• Contact person: Lynn Crocker, Director of Communications, tel: 408-266-8866 x227

Ms. Crocker should be able to confirm the donation. If you call, please post here results of your confirmation.

As for the Darfur relief efforts, the donation was routed through the Federal Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory though I'm not sure off hand who you'd speak with.

B) The ad hominem assertion that I am "a scumbag and a rat."

Is it that you object to Ad Networks being held accountable for the acts of their spammers?

_None_ of the Ad Networks deny that they use email for promotions nor that the spam I presented was theirs. They instead said "Hey, that wasn't sent by us, but by one of our affiliates and our contract says 'obey the law'" therefore we aren't responsible. As the court confirmed, one is responsible for the acts of one's agents -- no matter how many times "independent contractor" is written in the contract.

LazyHippy

Yes, please show us proof.

Great if it's raising money for good causes, but kinda seems a bit wrong to me... surely the affiliates/spammers are at fault, not the networks?

I really don't get the sue-anyone-for-anything society, seems to only benefit the lawyers.

__________________

Jon

I'm not confusing anything..

You said in the other thread that you were suing the companies and were going to give all of it to charity when you got paid out. SO, I want to see proof that you actually paid out the money you got from the companies who settled with you to charity like you originally said you would.

Unless of course you ARE profiting off of all of this for your own benefit, then it just makes you look like a scumbag that you yourself have given us the first impression of. Not me. Not the companies. Just you.

__________________

arz

The scumbags are the spammers and those who enable and protect them. That's it.

Joepublic

No, you are mistaken. I said:

Some defendants chose to settle. They gave to the charities. I dismissed them. No money went to me. Simple and straight forward as that.

For filing lawsuits? So where is the line for you?

Do you believe the spammers who sent email under multiple fraudulently and/or anonymously registered domain name should be hauled into court?

Under what circumstances, if any, do you believe that someone should be sued, a.k.a. held accountable, for spamming?