Facebook Wins $873 Million Lawsuit Against Spammer

damn_registrars writes "A US District judge has awarded $873 million dollars to Facebook in a default judgment against a spammer who sent messages to Facebook users about drugs and sex. This is the highest award so far in a civil suit under the CAN-SPAM Act."

Re:It's too much to discourage anyone.

[DogDude]

In the business world, it's simple. Shut down the corporation, and start another. It's too big to even consider paying, so the company that is being sued will just fold. That's why bars don't get insurance, generally: it's too expensive, and if something goes wrong, it's too expensive to deal with, so the bar's corporation just goes away, and it will generally re-launch under "new ownership". Happens every day.

Judgment Not Worth the Paper It's Printed On

[kilgortrout]

This is a default judgment against a foreign entity which undoubtedly is nothing more than an empty shell corporation with no assets. There is a reason they didn't bother to come and defend this action - the judgment is uncollectable. Talk about your pyrrhic victories.

Re:Judgment Not Worth the Paper It's Printed On

[Anonymous Coward]

except there's a name, adam guerbuez. just a tad different.

Who gets the money?

[izomiac]

Hypothetically, if the $837M judgment could be collected, who would receive it, Facebook or the users who were spammed? (I only ask in an attempt to be less cynical.) I mean, sure, Facebook might have lost a few users due to the spam, and there in had a reduction in the subsequent ad revenue, but $837M worth? It seems to me they're being rewarded for allowing someone to exploit their system...

Re:It's too much to discourage anyone.

[CodeBuster]

In the United States, the effect of a bankruptcy discharge is to eliminate only the debtor's personal liability and not the in rem liability for a secured debt to the extent of the value of collateral (i.e. they can generally seize personal property pledged as collateral for debts subject to a few exceptions such as one's primary residence and retirement accounts which cannot be seized). Certain taxes owed to the Federal, state, or local governments, government guaranteed student loans, and child support obligations cannot be discharged in bankruptcy. However, from what I understand (IANAL) depending upon the filling, Chapter 11 or Chapter 7 (which is much harder to file now because of recent revisions to US bankruptcy law sponsored by credit card companies), any unsecured personal debts, except those described above, are discharged and secured creditors get the collateral that was pledged and that debt is discharged. Court judgments, with the exception of child support payments which are a special case, are by definition unsecured debts and so they probably would be discharged in a Chapter 7 (or possibly even a Chapter 11, subject to partial payment) bankruptcy, but again IANAL and courts sometimes legally define things in ways that are different from the rest of society.

Is this the Crazypricks.com guy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Same name, same city.

This is a story from 2003 http://www.montrealmirror.com/ARCHIVES/2003/091803/news2.html

A Montreal company that makes and sells videos of people gleefully assaulting local vagrants and persuading them to perform humiliating acts is not only exploitative but is also breaking the law, say local social workers and police. The 90-minute Crazypricks Disturbing the Peace has - according to its creator Adam Guerbuez - sold over "2,000 to 3,000 copies a month" since its June release and was created in conjunction with a Web site that shows other such material to 9,000 paid subscribers who get to see updates every two weeks.... ...

Guerbuez, who says he had put $10,000 into the video and Web site, was acquitted last year for his involvement in an assault that led to the death of a man in 2000. He had been a longtime participant in racist-skinhead groups, although no more, he claims. "I have no time for that" these days, says the self-described businessman.

Re:Judgment Not Worth the Paper It's Printed On

[John Hasler]

> This is a default judgment against a foreign entity which undoubtedly is nothing more
> than an empty shell corporation with no assets.

The judgement was awarded against the spammer personally as well as against his "company" which FaceBook's lawyers say is fictitious.

> There is a reason they didn't bother to come and defend this action - the judgment is
> uncollectable.

FaceBook's lawyers say otherwise. They say they know who he is, where he is, that he has substantial assets, and that they intend to take those assets.

Re:It's too much to discourage anyone.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Basic psychology dictates that once you get above a certain risk people will start to ignore it..."

Bah and rubbish. Firstly, the "nothing to lose" is normally related in discussions about starving thieves and rapists vs the death penalty. It has nothing at all to do with monetary fines that stack based on repeat offenses... especially completely something completely voluntary like flooding someone's computer with spam. You could accidentally run a red light and get caught and fined, but you're never going to accidentally offer c1@lis to a million strangers. No one is going to say "$873 million??? I can't even imagine losing that much money in court!!! I'm going to run out and spam people right now!!!!11"

Secondly, we're not even talking about individuals - this is aimed at corporations. Corporations decide whether or not to break laws based on game theory: whether the potential profits exceed the potential fines. I'm sure you've heard the phrase "it's just the cost of doing business" by now.

At $873 million, the risk of spam exceeds the potential profit, even if your corporation is huge. Not even Microsoft would risk that large a fine.