For some time we’ve been watching the trend of anti-spammers getting slammed for their outrageous behavior, and celebrating the fact that in the United States, we live by the rule of law, and everyone must comply. Spam is a scourge upon the internet, and in cooperation with legitimate email marketers, legitimate, law abiding anti-spammers can make a positive impact. But if they step over the line, they are now being held to the same standards as everyone else.
In the case at hand, Gordon v. Virtumundo, in United States District Court (Western District of Washington State) Gordon, apparently a professional anti-spam plaintiff, runs what the Court described as a "spam business," or "litigation factory." As previously reported, the Court has already dismissed Gordon’s lawsuit against Virtumundo, and here states very clearly why it is imposing an award of Virtumundo’s attorneys’ fees against him.
"The Court finds that Plaintiffs’ instant lawsuit is an excellent example of the ill-motivated, unreasonable, and frivolous type of lawsuit that justifies an award of attorneys’ fees to Defendants" and "the Court finds that the goal of deterrence is particularly relevant here. Plaintiffs should be deterred from further litigating their numerous other CAN-SPAM lawsuits now that they are aware their lack of CAN-SPAM standing."
and
In looking at the intent of Congress in enacting CAN-SPAM, the Court states:
"Promotion of prolific private CAN-SPAM litigation is not what Congress intended."
So now, Gordon finds himself facing a legal bill of $111,440.00. I would imagine that this will chill his enthusiasm for his "spam business," and will hopefully send a message to other overly aggressive anti-spammers who bring illegitimate CAN-SPAM claims. It seems to be a continuation of the trend we’ve been reporting on here for some time. Let’s hope it continues.
______________________________________________________________
Come back to the iLegal column every week as we get specific about the rules, regulations, laws and trends that affect the online advertising industry. Each week we discuss important legal issues, talk about how to avoid the pitfalls, and cover the breaking legal and regulatory advertising industry news.
Legal Disclaimer: Information conveyed in this column is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. These materials do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Digital Moses, and is not guaranteed to be complete, correct, or up-to-date. The column is provided for "information purposes" only and should not be relied upon as "legal advice." This information is not intended to substitute for obtaining legal advice from an attorney. No person should act or rely on any information in this column without seeking the advice of an attorney.
Mark Meckler is the General Counsel for UniqueLeads.com, Inc., and Unique Lists, Inc.
Copyright 2007 Mark J. Meckler
Digg 
