PDA

View Full Version : Spammer Lands $11 Billion Fine... Yes, that's a B..



Cth
01-05-2006, 10:42 AM
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=28733 (http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=28733)

Small town ISP wins huge payout

By Nick Farrell: Thursday 05 January 2006, 10:30

A SMALL ISP in the town of Clinton, Iowa, has just won one of the largest payouts ever extracted from a spammer.

The firm, CIS Internet Services, won $11.2 billion from James McCalla, from Florida, who was found to have sent millions of unsolicited e-mails advertising mortgage and debt consolidation services through the ISP's network.

A lawsuit claimed that McCalla sent more than 280 million illegal spam e-mail messages. Frims advertised in the spam had already been ordered to cough up a billion dollars in damages.

Prosecutors argued that under state law in effect at the time, CIS was entitled to $10 per illegal e-mail.

The Iowa court was told the defendants "falsely and illegally" represented that their e-mails originated from the CIS domain The e-mails used the cis.net as a return address to disguise the source of the e-mails to avoid complaints.

CIS acknowledged that it is unlikely to see any of the judgement money but said that it was time that spammers learnt that their actions would result in an economic death penalty.

http://www.qctimes.net/articles/2006/01/04/news/local/doc43bb692ac9e86281138542.txt#top (http://www.qctimes.net/articles/2006/01/04/news/local/doc43bb692ac9e86281138542.txt#top)

Clinton Internet provider wins $11B suit against spammer
By Thomas Geyer

CLINTON, Iowa — A Clinton-based Internet service provider who successfully sued Internet spammers in the past now has been awarded an $11.2 billion judgment against a Florida man for sending millions of unsolicited e-mails advertising mortgage and debt consolidation services.

The judgment against James McCalla of Florida is the culmination of a multi-defendant lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa in 2003 by Robert W. Kramer III, owner of CIS Internet Services in Clinton.

Handed down by U. S. District Judge Charles R. Wolle on Dec. 23, the judgment also prohibits McCalla from accessing the Internet for three years.

A representative of the business said Kramer would not comment beyond a news release sent Tuesday.

“I’m pleased with Judge Wolle’s ruling,” Kramer said in the release. “It’s a victory for every e-mail user and every responsible ISP. It’s proof our courts and Congress are committed to protecting the public.

“E-mail is an innovation like atomic energy or the automobile. In the beginning, the opportunity for misuse is obvious. For e-mail, that’s now changed,” he said. “This ruling sets a new standard. Gross abusers of e-mail risk exposure to public ridicule as well as the economic death penalty.”

The lawsuit claimed that McCalla sent more than 280 million illegal spam e-mail messages into CIS’s network. CIS Internet Services, which was started in 1996, provides Internet connections to areas around Bellevue, Clinton, Fort Madison, Low Moor, Maquoketa and West Point in Iowa and Albany, Fulton and Savanna in Illinois.

Kramer’s lawsuit initially named numerous defendants, many of whom were weeded out and dropped from the lawsuit over the past couple of years.

Other defendants named in the lawsuit, however, including Cash Link Systems of Florida, AMP Dollar Savings Inc. of Arizona, and TEI Marketing Group Inc. of Florida were ordered in 2004 to pay judgments totaling more than $1 billion to CIS Internet Services.

He claimed that under state law in effect at the time, he was entitled to $10 per illegal e-mail.

Kramer said then that he likely will not see any of the judgment money.

The lawsuit said the defendants “falsely and illegally represented that their e-mails originated from CIS or from some other user of the ‘cis.net’ domain.” The e-mails, the lawsuit states, used the “cis.net” domain as part of a falsified return address. By doing so, the defendants disguised the true source of the e-mails “to deflect the thousands of inevitable complaints from disgruntled recipients of the e-mails.”

Such e-mails included a work-at-home get-rich-quick scheme, illegal Internet gambling and a pornographic Web site, the lawsuit states.

Kramer’s company is one of many that have filed lawsuits against spammers over the past several years. AOL and Microsoft each have filed numerous lawsuits against spammers.

According to the Web site for the Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial Email, or CAUCE, large numbers of junk e-mails have knocked out or disrupted Internet provider systems belonging to large Internet providers such as AT&T, as well as systems belonging to smaller rural providers such as CIS. Additionally, the massive numbers of spam e-mails cost businesses and individuals millions of dollars each year.

John Mozena, co-founder and vice president of CAUCE, said Tuesday that the judgment against McCalla is the largest one he has heard.

“By a couple orders of magnitude,” he said. “And we’re happy Mr. Kramer is holding spammers accountable.”

But the spamming problem remains huge, he said.

“Large judgments have not discouraged spammers as a whole,” he said. “There have been regulatory actions and even criminal actions against spammers, but it has not made much of a dent in the total volume of spam we see. Spam is still roughly two-thirds of all e-mail on the Internet.”

He said sending unsolicited commercial e-mail is not illegal in the U.S.; it is only illegal to send dishonest spam, which includes forging a company’s domain name onto the e-mail or having a misleading subject line.

State courts that have taken up the issue have said free speech is not hindered by anti-spam laws since the courts are only dictating “the manner of speech and not the content of speech,” he added.

The U.S. Supreme Court has not taken an anti-spam case, he added.

“What we need is a federal anti-spam law, such as some countries such as Australia have,” he said. “Spamming is illegal in Australia.”

TonyDiGerolamo
01-05-2006, 11:41 AM
It's not enough.

-TD

Thomas Mauer
01-05-2006, 11:44 AM
So who'll pay them that money? (Didn't read the whole thing, so if I did, please point me to the right paragraph. ;))

Wagon
01-05-2006, 11:46 AM
you mean, who pays the spammer? or who is going to pay the fine?

the various companies that want advertisement (and apparantly don't care about public image) pay the spammers...

Thomas Mauer
01-05-2006, 11:47 AM
you mean, who pays the spammer? or who is going to pay the fine?

the various companies that want advertisement (and apparantly don't care about public image) pay the spammers...
Yeah, I meant who's going to pay the fine. because clearly, a single spammer can't have that kind of dough.

Ben
01-05-2006, 11:47 AM
Easy way to stop spam - charge EVERYONE 0.001 cents per outgoing email.

The only problem with this would be viruses that have your computer send out hundreds of thousands of emails without your knowledge... Those people would be screwed, so this is probably a bad idea.

chrisfasowned
01-05-2006, 11:48 AM
So who'll pay them that money? (Didn't read the whole thing, so if I did, please point me to the right paragraph. ;))
no one. generally civil suits with that kind of pay-out will get reviewed and severly lessened.

WAKKAJAWAKKA
01-05-2006, 12:00 PM
Man, I Want 11 Billion.

Wayno.

ChrisCollins
01-05-2006, 12:05 PM
Yeah, I meant who's going to pay the fine. because clearly, a single spammer can't have that kind of dough.

Well no one is going to pay that fine. Its just a nice headline. The fine will be reduced upon appeal most likely. Still, I hope it at least sends a message to these spammers. I'm sick and tired of those damn phising emails from amazon and ebay.

pornbot2.5
01-05-2006, 12:06 PM
The guy is going to file for banruptcy, not pay a cent and start all over again based offshore with offshore spam servers.

Thomas Mauer
01-05-2006, 12:07 PM
Well no one is going to pay that fine. Its just a nice headline. The fine will be reduced upon appeal most likely. Still, I hope it at least sends a message to these spammers. I'm sick and tired of those damn phising emails from amazon and ebay.
You and me both. I recently had one from "paypal.com" asking me to update my account or it gets cancelled because of inactivity. One day after I'd made a transfer. hah.

Gavin
01-05-2006, 12:16 PM
no one. generally civil suits with that kind of pay-out will get reviewed and severly lessened.
Like the lady that sued about the coffee. Once it was all said and done she only got a few hundred thou.

Ray G.
01-05-2006, 12:19 PM
There's a very simple way to deal with spam. It's called "delete all".

Seriously, why is the government wasting time on this?

Thomas Mauer
01-05-2006, 12:27 PM
There's a very simple way to deal with spam. It's called "delete all".

Seriously, why is the government wasting time on this?
Maybe because spam is a huge problem for the economy because employees have to waste their time sifting through tons of crap to find the emails they really need.

pornbot2.5
01-05-2006, 12:31 PM
There's a very simple way to deal with spam. It's called "delete all".

My e-mail address once got sold to a list-broker and I wound up getting 100+ e-mails a day. It's annoying to pick through considering most spam these days are sent with seemingly real names.


Seriously, why is the government wasting time on this?

I prefer they spend my tax money on this than pork barrel projects or setting up puppet governments.

Smokinblues
01-05-2006, 12:33 PM
There's a very simple way to deal with spam. It's called "delete all".

Seriously, why is the government wasting time on this?

it might be simple on a consumer end, but it's a huge infrastructure problem.