Lawsuits Fly in Anti-Spam Land

E-mail marketer e360Insight’s battle with anti-spam blacklister Spamhaus recently became all-out war as e360’s CEO Dave Linhardt filed a new lawsuit drawing new combatants into the fray and an anti-spammer filed suit against him in response.

Linhardt filed a lawsuit on March 7 against participants in the online discussion forum Nanae-a group known for its virulently anti-spam participants-claiming they caused his e-mail to be blocked. The suit is the latest salvo in Linhardt’s legal fight with Spamhaus, a non-profit that maintains a blacklist of what its volunteers deem to be spammers.

In response to Linhardt’s newest attack, one of Nanae’s participants has turned around and launched a lawsuit against the e-mail marketer. Notably, the Nanae member suing Linhardt is not one of those named in Linhardt’s lawsuit.

“He’s a bully and a liar, and I don’t like bullies and liars,” said Bill Silverstein, a computer consultant and anti-spammer who is suing Linhardt.

Silverstein claims in the suit-filed Friday in California Superior Court in Los Angeles-that e360 illegally spammed his network. In a purposeful act of symbolism, Silverstein’s lawsuit asks for at least $11.7 million in punitive damages, the amount Linhardt was awarded in a default judgment against Spamhaus in September.

Silverstein added he has considered suing Linhardt for some time, and that the marketer’s suit against Nanae discussion-group participants was the last straw.

Meanwhile, according to Linhardt’s complaint filed in Illinois federal court, some Nanae participants have repeatedly referred to e360 as a spammer. As a result of their statements, Linhardt alleges, e360 has been blacklisted as a spammer and its e-mail has been blocked from intended recipients causing the firm to lose profits.

The complaint claims that e360 has lost clients and potential clients as a result of the discussion group’s participants’ actions.

Linhardt is seeking a court order barring the defendants from calling his company a spammer on Nanae, and is asking for more than $75,000 in damages.

The suit is part of Linhardt’s ongoing effort to expose the inner workings of Spamhaus, which is run in part by anonymous volunteers.

“The goal of the suit is to get to the truth behind the anti-spam vigilante organization and how some individuals are improperly damaging our business,” Linhardt wrote in an e-mail to this publication. “We believe these individuals are falsely reporting spam in an effort to damage our business. Further, we believe these individuals are reporting this false information to various blacklists and Internet service providers.”

Linhardt also claims that some individuals have faked information in unsolicited e-mail to make it appear as if his company was spamming.

“These improper actions seem to be a coordinated effort to encourage our suppliers and customers to terminate their agreements with e360 and our affiliated companies.”

Named in Linhardt’s suit are Mark Furguson, Susan Wilson, also known as Susan Gunn, Tim Skirvin, Kelly Chien, an unknown person who goes by Fudo, and an unknown person who goes by Morely Dotes. The names are familiar to those who follow the spam wars. Susan Wilson, for example, was the main protagonist in Spam Kings, the 2004 book by Brian McWilliams exploring the underworld of spammers and the vigilantes who fight them.

Linhardt sued Spamhaus last year, claiming the organization wrongly listed his company as a spammer and caused much of his outbound e-mail to be blocked.

As is the case with many marketers, one of Linhardt’s main criticisms of Spamhaus is that the organization acts as judge, jury and executioner, and there is no recourse for e-mailers who believe they’ve been wrongly listed.

“Because Spamhaus does not provide any evidence whatsoever, not even a single offending e-mail address, it is impossible for a listed company to dispute the information,” Linhardt wrote in an e-mail to this newsletter. “As a result, the Spamhaus blacklist is nothing more than a rumor mill filled with questionable information from suspect sources. Unfortunately, the ISP community sometimes takes Spamhaus at its word with absolutely no recourse for the marketer.”

Notably, however, some well-known commercial e-mail companies have rallied to Spamhaus’ defense. They signed an amicus brief filed in court on behalf of the blacklister in its appeal aiming to get a ruling Linhardt won against it last year overturned. Among the signers were pay-for-performance marketer Datran Media, deliverability concern Return Path and e-mail service provider Innovyx.

Marketers who defend Spamhaus maintain that though the organization can be incredibly difficult to deal with, people’s inboxes would be swamped with spam without it.

Linhardt won an $11.7 million default judgment against Spamhaus in September when representatives of the antispam outfit failed to show up and defend themselves in court.

Spamhaus’ chief executive, Steve Linford, has refused to abide by the ruling, claiming the U.S. court has no jurisdiction over his U.K.-based organization.

Linhardt declined comment on Silverstein’s lawsuit, saying that an e-mail from this publication yesterday was the first time he’d been made aware of it.