Class Action Lawsuit Against Spammer 299
sfjoe writes "California-based spammer eTracks is being sued by the law firm, Morrison and Foerster (who have a very cool homepage). M & F's press release says they are "...seeking other relief, including attorneys' fees and statutorily authorized damages of $50 for each email delivered in violation of the law, up to $25,000 per day".
California's anti-spam law has already held up under appeals court scrutiny so this may very well be a major setback to the spam industry."
I think spammers should be forced to pay by donating an organ for each
forged header.
Re:what gives? (Score:4, Informative)
These people are not legitimate marketers. They collect names, that much is probably legal, but the illegal part comes when they commit computer trespass, exploiting poorly configured servers, and signing the mail with fraudulent return addresses.
If these crimes take place in other countries, it may be legal, but it is illegal in most of the united states. VA has a personal juristiction clause in the law. If you spam here, then you do business here, you come to court here.
Deja Vu? (Score:2, Informative)
-Henry
Re:A death blow against Free Speech (Score:4, Informative)
"Even after receiving formal notice of Morrison & Foerster's policy against spam, Etracks has sent at least 6,500 unsolicited email advertisements to Morrison & Foerster's California users."
So, my mail server I pay by the byte. Why should I pay for any spam, even the headers? If I'm forced to stop because of that, aren't they inhibiting my First Amendment rights?
Read the law. The mail:
Must be labeled advertisement
Must have valid contact information
Must not have forged headers
Must cease mailing upon request How is any of that against the First Amendment?
Re:what gives? (Score:2, Informative)
In this case the law firm, this is NOT a class action case, claims they received spam from the company without a valid return adress or a toll free phone number as required by CA law so people can remove themselves; it is also claimed that Etracks did not identify thier comercial messages as required by CA law. The firm then suposedly tracked them down and told them not to send any more messages to them, they did not comply.So the law firm sued.
While one might complain about the need to identify messages in the subject, it seems to go a bit far to say that one should not be able to make someone stop sending you stuff. The supreme court has ruled that the rights to free expresion and free speech do not allow one to annoy others on thier property. A round of messages could be defended as free speech, but to continue mailing after you have been asked not to is to make a nuissance of oneself.
Not Class Action (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Get em, you mofo lawyers! (Score:3, Informative)
So MoFo.com is going for the amx the law will allow, they might even get attorney's fees out of it (Section 5, sub f, sub 2).
CORRECTION: lawsuit != class action (Score:2, Informative)
Re:$50/e-mail! (Score:2, Informative)
The way we get rid of
Re:Mofo. (Score:4, Informative)
They are cool, not clueless. Vince Flanders of webpagesthatsuck.com related how he (or an acquaintance) emailed them, in essence,
"Um, Mr. Morrison & Foerster, are you aware your URL, mofo.com, is, well, kindof obscene?"
Their PR person replied, basically, "Yes, we're aware of that. We're cultivating an image of a firm you don't want to mess with."
Given that, I will heed their advice and not mess with them. :)
Re:Interesting statistic . . . (Score:2, Informative)
Response rates:
E-messaging 5%-15%
Traditional direct 0.5%-5.0%
Anybody know how accurate this is?
The 5-15% response rate for emessaging is about right for "direct email marketing" [non-UCE or unintentional ("oops, we f---ed up") UCE]. Actual response rate varies wildly, depending on list composition, message type (newsletter, service reminder, etc.), and the vlue proposition of the message itself. Response rate is usually defined as unique clickthroughs (at least one "click" on at least one link contained within an email per recipient == a response). Jupiter may have defined it to mean something else.
Response rates in this range generally require good recipient lists (recent, active accounts comprised of people who actually opted to receive your message). Weaker lists ("sign up for special messages from our partners when you open a HotMail account") typically net a 2-4% clickthrough response in best case scenarios.
Now, true UCE/spam ... well, I find it difficult to believe that its response rates (measured as clickthrough) rarely approach even 2-4%, let alone 5-15%.
Note that the "response rates" for the two media you lifted (email v. direct mail) aren't necessarily measurements of the same *type* of response.
- fmr. direct email mktg. cog
Re:Would this be a good service? (Score:2, Informative)
It's called Tagged Message Delivery Agent, or TDMA. You can find more information on it at http://software.libertine.org/tmda/ [libertine.org].
Basically it works on a whitelist, you can automatically add people to this whitelist and they are free to send you email anytime. For people not already on your whitelist, when you send that user a message, it will pop back a email with instructions on how to confirm your message, once you do that (usually simply by replying to the message), your on the whitelist.
It works with qmail, Sendmail, Exim and other popular mailers.