 |
Breaking
eBusiness and Search News |
|
 |
Spamhaus To Appeal Default Judgment
After some impressive jurisdiction-based grandstanding, United Kingdom-based Spamhaus has decided to get into the Illinois court ring after all. The nonprofit organization has enlisted the aid of Chicago pro-bono attorneys to appeal a default judgment in favor of alleged spammer e360 Insight.
Last month, an Illinois awarded $11.7 million to e360, and issued a permanent injunction against the Spamhaus' email-blocking technology.
Spamhaus, headed by chief executive Steve Linford, refused to show for the hearing, claiming Illinois lacked jurisdiction over a British company that has no offices or operations in the United States. On the same objection grounds, Spamhaus refused to pay the judgment or to obey the court orders.
The courts petitioned ICANN and domain registrar Tucows to suspend the Spamhaus domain if they did not comply. ICANN responded quickly saying the company had neither the ability nor the authority to suspend.
In what appears to be an effort to deter any future lawsuits, and to guard against possible domain suspension, Spamaus is appealing the judgment. Chicago-based law firm Jenner & Block took up the nonprofit organization's cause pro bono.
Both sides are spitting venom at the other. Spamhaus called e360 "a one-man bulk email marketing outfit" run by David Linhardt, who Spamhaus says filed a "SLAPP" lawsuit and made false claims under oath without any attempt by the court to corroborate.
Spamhaus says the default judgment illustrates "that U.S. courts can be bamboozled by spammers with ease, and that no proof is required in order to obtain judgments over clearly foreign entities."
In two separate releases about the case:
"Spamhaus advises Mr. Linhardt to re-file his case in a British court when he can prove jurisdiction, but advises Mr. Linhardt that British courts do not accept US-style 'SLAPP' suits and impose penalties for lying to the court."
"Spamhaus understands that David Linhardt does not wish to file in the United Kingdom because his activities are illegal here."
In addition, the company defended itself against Linhardt's accusations of being a "fanatical, vigilante organization operating in the United States with blatant disregard for U.S. law."
Spamhaus links to a Google Groups page it says lists the type of email messages sent, all of which have quite spammy subject lines.
They say Lindhardt's site www.bargaindepot.net violates U.S. CAN-SPAM Act, sending emails with false routing information, from compromised computers on ADSL lines in Vietnam, China, Korea, Taiwan and Norway. They also claim Linhart is a "Partner-in-spam" of professional spammer Brian Haberstroh (aka Atriks).
But also, Spamhaus used a US Supreme Court opinion as well as European and US law to refute claims that the company was preventing e360 from sending mail and to reinforce that it had the right to block mail on behalf of clients.
Spamhaus also stands by the absolute right, under the European Convention on Human Rights, of Spamhaus' users to refuse access to their private mailboxes on their private networks to senders of unsolicited bulk email or indeed any unwanted email, a right established also in U.S. law by Chief Justice Burger, U.S. Supreme Court, who ruled: "The asserted right of a mailer stops at the outer boundary of every person's domain".
Spamhaus maintains that while Linhardt has a right under U.S. law to send as much unsolicited bulk email as he likes, he has no right under any law to force Spamhaus users to receive it.
Spamhaus does not seem to have denied e360's claims that the company blocked messages from 86,622 unique domains in the U.S. alone. In Linhardt's estimation, US companies collectively pay Spamhaus $1.8 million annually to specifically block messages from e360, which constitutes doing business in the U.S.
An observer basing his judgment from arguments presented in the competing press releases would seem hard pressed to favor e360's version of the case over Spamhaus'. When lawsuit rhetoric is peppered with dramatic and reaching phrases like "fanatical" and "vigilante" are used, it's hard to take the rest seriously.
But Spamhaus does seem to have, at least outside the courts, some pretty solid evidence and support for their actions so far.
Tag: Spamhaus
Add to  Del.icio.us |  Digg |  Yahoo! My Web |  Furl
Bookmark WebProNews: 
View All Articles by Jason Lee Miller
Receive
Our Daily Email of Breaking eBusiness News
About the Author:
Jason L. Miller is a staff writer for WebProNews covering technology and business.
 WebProNews RSS Feed
More Top News Articles
Contact WebProNews |
|
|
 eBUSINESS
RESOURCES |
|
|
 |
|
| About
WebProNews |
WebProNews is the number
one source for eBusiness News. Over 5 million eBusiness professionals read
WebProNews and other iEntry business and tech publications.
WebProNews provides real-time coverage of internet
business.
Free Email Newsletters:
|
|
|
|
Jason Lee Miller
