FILE THIS ONE UNDER “largest spam-related judgment ever that was completely ignored.”
The Spamhaus Project is thumbing its nose at an e-mail marketer who won a court decision in Illinois of $11.7 million against the United Kingdom-based anti-spam blacklisting group. On Sept. 13 the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division ordered Spamhaus to pay e-mail marketing concern e360 Insight and its CEO David Linhardt $11.7 million in damages and just under $2,000 in litigation costs.
The ruling bars Spamhaus from causing e-mail sent by e360 Insight or any of its affiliates to be blocked. It also requires Spamhaus to post a 1-inch-by-1-inch message on its site for six months saying that the group erroneously listed e360 Insight as a spammer.
However, the decision was a default judgment because Spamhaus failed to show up in court and defend itself. Spamhaus contends the Illinois court has no jurisdiction over it and has challenged Linhardt to file a suit on the anti-spam group's home turf in the United Kingdom.
Spamhaus maintains a list of IP addresses it deems are those of spammers. An unknown number of e-mail inbox providers use the list to determine whether they should filter incoming e-mail. It's estimated that as much as 20% of a sender's outbound e-mail can be blocked if Spamhaus blacklists its servers.
Linhardt contends that U.S. courts do have jurisdiction over Spamhaus, and he intends to get the ruling enforced.
“Spamhaus actively markets and sells its data-feed service to companies in the U.S., is conducting business in the U.S., is illegally interrupting business in the U.S., and is using servers located in the U.S.,” he said. “Therefore, Spamhaus and [its director] Mr. [Steve] Linford are indeed subject to U.S. law.”
According to e360 Insight, the U.K. operation began causing havoc with its e-mail marketing by placing e360's IP addresses on the Spamhaus Block List (SBL) in 2003. Linhardt claimed that some 65% of his company's e-mail was not reaching customers because of Spamhaus' efforts. He also denied that his company sends spam. He said Spamhaus targeted e360 Insight because the firm once worked with a vendor Spamhaus doesn't like.
Spamhaus is “hell-bent on destroying anyone they can associate even loosely with that organization,” Linhardt said, adding that his company hasn't dealt with the vendor, which he declined to name, in months. (Spamhaus lists a company named Atriks and principal Brian Haberstroh as the outfit in question.)
Meanwhile, court documents show that Spamhaus originally responded to Linhardt's lawsuit but then backed out.
Famed anti-spam lawyer Pete Wellborn's name appears on documents filed for Spamhaus July 21 in answer to e360's complaint.
However, Spamhaus reportedly failed to meet an Aug. 17 deadline to submit discovery materials.
According to multiple sources, Spamhaus balked at Wellborn's price for seeing the case through. Wellborn referred Direct to Linford for comment, but the latter failed to reply to two e-mails.
Internet/e-mail expert John Levine said he believed Spamhaus would have won handily if it had defended itself. However, battling the case out in a U.S. court would require Spamhaus to agree that the U.S. court had jurisdiction over it.
“If [the suit] actually slogged through the legal system [in the United Kingdom] and was resolved, there was no way this guy [Linhardt] would succeed,” said Levine. “But in the way he's filed his complaint, he wants vast amounts of discovery. It's specifically designed to make things as excruciatingly painful as possible before the plaintiff loses.”
Levine said e360 got everything it asked for in the Illinois ruling because Spamhaus didn't show up.
“The guy gave the judge a proposed ridiculous order, and since Spamhaus didn't answer it, the judge had no option but to say OK,” said Levine. “In a just world, the judge would have looked at it and said, ‘This is ridiculous. I'm going to charge you $1,000 for wasting my time,’” and that would have been that.”
