RSS
Court Tells Spammer That It's Not Illegal For An ISP To Filter Its Emails
from the in-no-uncertain-terms dept
If the name e360 sounds familiar to you, it may be because it was the company that sued Spamhaus for including it in its spam filter list. e360 insists it's not a spammer and anyone filtering its messages is somehow infringing on its rights. Of course, there seems to be ample evidence that e360 has been spamming, and the company has been sued directly as well. e360's latest lawsuit was against Comcast for filtering its emails, but as Slashdot lets us know, a judge has tossed that suit out of court while also declaring in no uncertain terms that e360 is a spammer.
Plaintiff e360Insight, LLC is a marketer. It refers to itself as an Internet marketing company. Some, perhaps even a majority of people in this country, would call it a spammer.The key in this case was that the judge relied on section 230 of the CDA -- a section of the law that we often talk about for shielding service providers against the actions of its users. In this case, it's a different part of section 230, which also shields ISPs from liability for "good faith" efforts to block objectionable content -- and then the court says that it's clear that Congress and the courts have determined that spam is objectionable content.
This isn't the first time we've seen cases like this. A few years back a series of courts all ruled against a spam company which claimed that it had followed the "rules" in CAN SPAM, so filtering its spam was illegal. It's nice to see the courts recognize that's simply not true.
26 Comments | Leave a Comment..
If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
- Apparently, If Your Domain Has 'Dirt' In The Name, Section 230 Safe Harbors Don't Apply (Uh Oh...)
- I'm Not A Fan Of This Craptastic Trademark Lawsuit
- Comcast -- Owner Of NBC Universal -- Admits That DNS Redirects Are Incompatible With DNSSEC
- Don't Confuse All Safe Harbors With Poorly Written Ones
- Good Content Doesn't Get Buried By Bad Content
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
spammers 0
Keep it up!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Plaintiff e360Insight, LLC is a marketer. It refers to itself as an Internet marketing company. Some, perhaps even a majority of people in this country, would call it a spammer. "
You really think that's in "no uncertain terms"?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Some and Perhaps
Last time I checked, "some" and "perhaps" the two operative words here were in no way certain!
Let's put this to the test...
I would prefer "some" of the gold.
I would prefer "all" of the gold. ding-ding-ding!
I am certain I want "all" not "some" of hte gold.
Let's try this again shall we? :)
"perhaps" I shall eat a pile of dog poop.
Um, I am dammed "certain" that I will not eat a pile of dog poop. ding-ding-ding!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Some and Perhaps
Take your english class down the hall to someone who cares.
They lost, end of story
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
English Class
"Perhaps" you and e360 "shall" sit down together and eat "some," if not "all" of that pile of dog poop.
SPAM is bad on many levels. Regardless of semantics, the court was absolutely right in its judgement.
Are you a lawyer? That was a lame lawyer comment if I ever saw one. "Your Honor, the car only *slightly* killed the pedestrian."
Consider changing your handle to, "I Am Definitely a Bubba."
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
*****SPLAT*****
Hey David Linhardt - sue, like you always do.
Vexatous litigant.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
GOOD!
About the majority/all statement... a judge could not possibly make the statement that 'all' people view it as spam... It would be an extremely broad generalization since he can't read the minds of all Americans to find out what we all think, and he's obviously not going to survey us all just to make sure. I think the original author was pretty accurate when they said "in no uncertain terms."
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
My ISP filter is UNREASONABLE
The outcome? "Too Bad, we've determined that emails that contain the word LOTTERY have a higher probability of being spam. My ISP is www.surewest.net
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Spammers should be stoned...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
News
08.30.07
E360 Wins Appeal Against Global Vigilante Organization Spamhaus
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Ok.. it may or may not be spam...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
spammers 45,456,720,315
Still though. Its a start
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
But...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Their website.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Their website.
They are referring to a judgment in July 07.
The case here is the judiscial follow up and was decided
in April 08.
e360's just blowing a smokescreen over the reality of them having lost.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: English Class
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Where does this leave free speech rights of non-spammers?
I cannot send emails that contain the word LOTTERY. There is no claim that I am spamming - I'm involved in political issue on the H-1B LOTTERY - and I can't even send email to media and Congress that contains that phrase.
REAL SPAMMERS would use LOTERY, L(zero)TTERY, or such anyway, so the only harm is to legit users.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Free Anti spam webinar, Why Today’s Spam Filters Fail
Ferris Research estimates that spam will cost $140 billion worldwide in 2008, of which $42 billion will be in the United States alone. If you compare these numbers with Ferris’s 2007 estimates of $100 billion and $35 billion, you’ll see that the cost of spam has increased substantially over 12 months.
Register for a complimentary Webinar conducted by Abaca and Ferris research to know more about how you can stop this nuisance. To register please click the link below:
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=LPFKkdkFwOYltiQZtM_2bttw_3d_3d
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Free Anti spam webinar, Why Today�s Spam Filters Fail
Ha ha
very funny
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Objectionable Content?
I mean, who gets to decide what is and what is not "objectionable" and therefore blockable?
I believe that giving ISPs free rights of censorship is not in the best interest of the people and can lead to serious damage to our freedom of speech rights.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
where is freedom of speech?
Long live bulk mail advertising.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment