Via Prof. Goldman I see that now-famous (or infamous) [TIME Magazine: "A Spammer's Revenge"] anti-spam activist Mark Mumma has been hit with a jury award for $2.5 million damages [link] for cruise.com's defamation claim [see also The Spam Diaries].

Mumma's claims (or rather counterclaims - cruise.com preemptively filed a defamation claim and Mumma countersued under CAN-SPAM) resulted in the 4th Circuit's Mummagraphics ruling.  Many recognized this as limiting the reach of CAN-SPAM and providing powerful amminution against the Anti-spammer Crowd.

The Spam Diaries asks an excellent question: 

It seems to me that Mumma genuinely believed that Cruise was in violation of CAN-SPAM, and he thought he had the evidence (in the form of misleading header information) to back up his case. If he genuinely thought Cruise are spammers, is it defamation to say so, even if the court eventually rules that they're not?

I don't know the specific answer to that question, but can say generally that the standard of "fault" in a defamation case involving a private figure is less than one involving a public figure or a newsworthy event.  Also, more importantly, someone appearing to be Robert Braver (also a member of the Anti-spammer Crowd) posted a comment on John Levine's blog which could fatally undermine any claim of an honest mistake on the part of Mumma.  According to Braver:

Well before cruise.com's suit, many folks in NANAE publicly expressed their disapproval of Mumma's cruise.com page on his web site. I did privately and I was scoffed at.

I also saw the cruise.com emails and did a cursory check for a pattern of spam complaints. I determined that that emails did not in any way violate the Oklahoma statutes or CAN-SPAM, and told him so. I told him that pursuing such claims could also have negative consequences for others who are pursuing legitimate claims (such as me), and he derided me.

All that is pretty much water under the bridge at this point.  It's going to cost Mr. Mumma a good amount of money - or help from a good lawyer working pro bono to bounce back from this setback. 

This all got me thinking about something else.  Why would Mumma's words subject him to liability to the tune of $2.5 million when Spamhaus can potentially escape liability for saying the exact same thing?  (See here and here for a discussion of Pallorium, where a California appellate court held that Section 230 bars defamation claims based on publication of lists of potential spammer domains.  Spamhaus is currently defending against defamation claims brought by e360.  Assuming it gets beyond the procedural hurdles in the case, it's thought that they will likely be successful in their Section 230 defense.)  You could argue this -- Mumma having to pay $2.5 million while Pallorium pays nothing -- represents a policy choice made by Congress to promote the free flow of information over the internet (Section 230).  But I'm not quite buying it.