Appeals Court Tosses Out $11 Million Ruling Against Spamhaus... For Now
from the one-step-in-the-right-direction dept
You may recall that last year there was a lot of news about a direct email firm, e360insight, suing anti-spam organization SpamHaus for listing the email firm as a spammer -- and winning over $11 million. Part of the reason for the decision was that SpamHaus, after originally preparing to fight the charges, simply ignored the case and said that it didn't apply since SpamHaus is based in the UK and the lawsuit was in Illinois. Because of that, the district court judge gave a default judgment to the e360insight and awarded the company $11 million from SpamHaus (which SpamHaus neither had nor intended to deliver). The court also issued an injunction against SpamHaus, saying it could no longer list e360 as a spammer -- which SpamHaus has ignored. However, now, an Appeals Court has tossed out the injunction and the monetary award, saying that the district court judge didn't look closely enough in determining the punishment -- and simply accepted the word of the guy behind e360insight in saying how much SpamHaus's listing had cost him.While this is initially a victory for SpamHaus, it doesn't change the initial default judgment against SpamHaus -- it just sends the ruling back to the lower court to rethink what the punishment should be. So, SpamHaus may still be on the hook for certain damages and may again be told not to list e360insight (though, again, it'll probably ignore any such ruling). Of course, with the recent ruling that found section 230 of the CDA means that anti-spyware vendors are allowed to call any software they want spyware, as long as they have a good faith belief that it is spyware, you have to wonder if SpamHaus could use the same law to defend its ability to call any particular organization a spammer. It may be too late for that in this case, with SpamHaus already having decided not to take part -- but for future reference, it will be interesting to see if others start using this same argument.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
yawn.. I guess a few more people better not holiday in the states for a while
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The fact that this was and still is perjury (since spamhuas never owned such assets) and the claim to jurisdiction has never been validated, renders the whole hearing (and judgement) invalid as far as I'm aware
read the original feed from the time and the court transcripts linked to from them - honest it's true
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
of course they should.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There are still remedies
Internet users as a group are both resourceful and easily annoyed.
uh, er, um nothing in this comment is intended to suggest, much less advocate any illegal or tortious activity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
USA law imunizes spamhaus for listing e30insight i
www.e360insight.com has been offline since the end of August, 2007. Google Usenet profiles shows that he last posted from his e-mail sever on August 30, shortly before his website ceased to respond and shortly before he stopped sending e-mail to people who considered it appropriate for posting or reporting as spam from e360insight.
He was ordered to pay his own costs, suggesting that the appeal court judges realized he had no basis in USA law for claiming damages. They also suggested that spamhaus could sue their first lawyer, the one who left them with the default judgment by not defending them, for malpractice if the default damages judgment had been left in force.
The still in force provisions of the USA Communications Decency Act immunize spamhaus against any claim of damages by e360insight. Any good faith identification of e360insight as a source of "objectionable" content is protected under the USA CDA law. This is well established case law in the USA, upheld again in the 2007 September 5th decision in the case of Zango versus Kapersky Lab.
Expressing a good faith opinion that someone is a spam or spyware source is protected under USA law. This is quite deliberate. The legislators who drafted and ratified this provision stated that their intent was to foster a wide open market place by encouraging many different options and techniques for consumers to choose to use to block potentially objectionable content from appearing on their computers.
Immunity applies even if the good faith identification turned out to be wrong. The only remedy intended by the USA legislators is that consumers will choose not to use objectionable content identification techniques which are unreliable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]