e360 Sued
Techdirt reports that [intrepid] e360, which sued Spamhaus for defamation, has been sued for CAN-SPAM violations in California. [† Internet Cases]
What say I? Not much. To recap briefly, e360 is a mass emailer which sued Spamhaus (for defemation/trade libel), alleging that Spamhaus allegedly wrongfully labelled e360 as a spammer. The court's order awarding e360 an injunction is currently on appeal in the 7th Circuit. In the meantime, someone in a totally separate lawsuit filed claims against e360 in California alleging among other things violations of the CAN-SPAM Act.
As a practical matter the California lawsuit will have no effect on the e360/Spamhaus lawsuit. Truth is, indeed, an absolute defense in a defamation action, and any CAN-SPAM judgment against e360 can likely be used by Spamhaus for this purpose. However, by the time the CAN-SPAM lawsuit against e360 winds its way through the courts, the e360/Spamhaus lawsuit will (probably) be long over. Also, the Spamhaus appeal mostly deals with procedural issues - the Seventh Circuit is unlikely to address the merits of the claims. (Spamhaus probably has a chicken/egg issue on the underlying truth defense. It's gained reasonable promimence, and plaintiffs probably look on ROKSO for potential defendants.)
[Correction: I take those last two sentences back. If someone ultimately proves that e360 violated CAN-SPAM, and Spamhaus gets to argue the merits (this is a big if), there would be no chicken/egg issue. Spamhaus would not be arguing that it relied on a third party statement in making its own statement, it would merely assert that e360 is a spammer. On the merits that would be the end of e360's defamation action.]
Venkat,
You should have done some research. It was me who filed the suit against e360insight. It was also announced on http://www.calspam.com .
It was e360's suit against Spamhaus and NANAE that brought them to my attention.
Reply to this
Venkat, here is some for you on the impact of the Spamhaus appeal.
In my case against e360 and Linhardt, Linhardt was dismissed on a 12(b)(2) motion. As part of my argument for his personal jurisdiction (he claimed that acting as president, he was not liable for his actions) he claimed that in Spamhaus "e360 and I lost..." and specified 7 companies, 4 of which are in California. Linhardt explained this away by stating that this loss was in his role as president, and personally involved in these losses.
This will apply as to his "personal damages" are analyzed in the spamhaus case.
Reply to this