Mass Mailer That Tried To Get Spamhaus Shut Down Now Sued For Spamming

from the fair-play? dept

Back in September, you may recall that e360 Insight, a bulk mailing company won a lawsuit against Spamhaus, the well known service that tries to identify spammers. e360 was awarded $11 million dollars — though, Spamhaus didn’t bother to defend itself in the case. e360 then pushed the judge to force Spamhaus offline if it was unable to pay, but the judge decided that was unnecessary. Throughout all of this, Spamhaus insisted that its classification of e360 as a spammer was perfectly legitimate — and it appears at least someone in California agrees. That someone is now suing e360 Insight for at least 87 spam messages in violation of the CAN SPAM law. This could make for an interesting case. If e360 is found guilty of having violated anti-spam laws — will that information be used to reverse the earlier decision against Spamhaus?

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Mass Mailer That Tried To Get Spamhaus Shut Down Now Sued For Spamming”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
|333173|3|_||3 says:

It would depend on what the original claim against spamhaus was. If it was some form of defamtion then Spamhaus may have the right to appeal, although they may decide it is better to do nothing and continue to refuse to accept US juristiction.
Alternaltively, they could change thier claim to be a blacklist of addresses which appear to be spammers, and put up a disclaimer prominently on thier site that they do not state that every address listed actually is a spammer, and that not every spammer is listed. that way they are protected againt these lawsuits, and against he idiocity posted on in the comments on the article about the spamhaus suit.

For the sake of prventing cliams that since a company had a website, they were conducting business worldwide and thus can fall under US law, there should be a .us CC-TLD, which does fall under US juristiction, and a treaty/UN resolution which states that all sites under a country’s TLD are considered to be in that country, and that all other sites are in no way under any control of the country (although of course any physical business in a country is under that country’s juristiction). If all existing 3-letter TLDs were moved to the .us TLD, and 2 new tlsds were created, .un for un agencies and ISO, .arpa, and maybe a new .org for internationally accredited non-profit organisations.
This would end the stupidity of searching for a juristiction which suits the plaintif.

security (user link) says:

One Judges Opinion vrs Another's ???????

In theory two Judges or Two juries with seperate conclusions are not that uncommon in our politically diverse nation.

It is a given that depending on the jurisdication – and even the Judges within that district – there can be varied rulings involving analogous trials.

Pehaps a decision by the Appellate Court or Court of Appeals might have more influence, if it gets that far without settlement.

Casper says:

So what are they?

If e360 isn’t a spammer, what do they call themselves? They mail mass quantities of junk email… sounds like spam to me. Of course I just hate any company that has “If you not using permission email, web, direct mail and telemarketing together then you are missing revenue opportunities.” as the first line in their google description.

Mr Textbooks (user link) says:

Spamhaus should use a different name

It seems like if they came up with their own rating system, they could behave in the same manner but avoid suits for classifying people as ‘spammers’. So they could just say certain organizations did not pass their tests as opposed to calling them spammers.

Their data could be used in the same way, and it might be easier to defend yourself if it’s just an opinion.

Andreas van dem Helge says:

Re: Spamhaus should use a different name

I did not do extensive research but even the “CAN SPAM” act has no legal definition of the word “spam” in the Act, SPAM is short for ‘Stop Pornography and Abusive Marketing Act. So I see no reason why independent firms cannot determine themselves what they define as “spam” I think a definition even as simple as “email we dont like” would suffice.

Jonathan Frieden (user link) says:

Re: Re: Spamhaus should use a different name

The CAN-SPAM Act does not define “spam,” which is merely a slang term for certain types of unsolicited electronic mail messages. The Act defines “commercial electronic mail message” and describes under what conditions the sending of such messages may be punished.

For the full text of the Act, see the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003.

For a brief summary of the Act, see E-Mail Marketing and Managing Risk Under the CAN-SPAM Act.

Enrico Suarve (user link) says:

In your face!!


Finally someone suing Mr Linhardt’s obnoxious little ass – excellent

I note that he has taken on board criticisms from last time and actually produced a full web page instead of just the court transcript of his last outing, shame as that was entertaining. I can only assume that he’s just not had time to put the transcript-so-far of this one up yet, and I look forward to it

As for whether a successful outcome for the plaintiff should be used to overturn the ruling against Spamhaus – No it shouldn’t. The previous ruling was only made after E360 stated categorically in the preliminaries to the trial, that Spamhaus owned and operated offices inside the US (giving the court jurisdiction) – since they didn’t, this was an out and out lie and perjury. *This* minor fact should be used to kill the earlier ruling

I await the outcome eagerly and for the full wait of the CAN-SPAN act to land on Mr Linhardt, an event which will surely result in fining him hundreds of cents…

William Silverstein (profile) says:

e360insight brought it on themselves

I was the one who filed the suit against e360insight. It was also announced on .

It was e360’s suit against Spamhaus and NANAE that brought them to my attention.

It is now interesting where Linhardt claimed, in my case, that when he told the Spamhaus Court, “e360 and I lost ….” that he really meant “e360 and I in my role as president….”

Charles Vroom says:

There is a difference Between a mass mailer and SPAM

A firm that does Mass mailing is just a service for blasting hundreds to thousands of emails for you.
I personally use one. I have a large email server, but, cannot affford the strain of sending emails to thousands of my customers who sign up for newsletters ,etc.

A SPAMMER just sends out thousands to millions of pieces of unsolicated emails for Profit.

Make sure everyone in Legislature is clear on the difference!

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...