Spamhaus Rebuffed by Seventh Circuit
Spamhaus suffered a reasonably severe loss in the Seventh Circuit earlier this week. The court mostly rebuffed Spamhaus’s arguments
that the district court had an independent obligation to verify the propriety
of jurisdiction. The Seventh Circuit affirmed
entry of default judgment, but remanded the case for a more precise determination of
damages and the scope of the injunction.
(Access a pdf version of the opinion here.)
Regarding damages, the court finds that the district court should have
held a hearing or sought additional evidence before rendering a verdict for
millions of dollars. It came to a
similar conclusion regarding injunctive relief, which is traditionally a bit harder to justify. As predicted, the court raised First Amendment concerns regarding the scope of the injunctive relief awarded by the district court.
Bottom line: this
case goes back to district court for additional proceedings on the damages and
remedy. But issues of liability cannot
be further contested by Spamhaus.
Categories: CAN-SPAM, Miscellany, ETIQUETTE, Investigation and Enforcement, Anti-Spammers
Hmm, the rest of the commentary I've read on this topic elsewhere suggests that this was a mixed result; there were definitely positive aspects to this outcome, as far as Spamhaus was concerned. Primarily, though not only, a very large judgment was set aside, and now E360 has to make a strong case to prove actual damages in an adversarial context. Additionally, the court rebuffed E360's point that E360 operated within the law, pointing out that this was never at issue-- Spamhaus doesn't have to restrict listings only to people who break the law. The injunction seemed to suggest that E360 was unlistable for complying with the law. Not the case, according to the ruling.
Reply to this
Are you sure you read the same decision the rest of us did? The appeals court throw out all of the damages, the entire injunction, and told the trial court that E360 had to start from scratch if they wanted either one back.
http://weblog.johnlevine.com/Email/shappeal.html
Reply to this
I guess it's a matter of expectations.
I didn't think it was very realistic that the injunction or $$ judgment would stick so I'm not terribly surprised by that part of the result. (I thought the injunction was overly broad, unsupported by a sufficient factual basis, and e360 was pushing the envelope on this anyway.)
Also, I guess (John Levine) I would disagree that e360 has to "start from scratch." Spamhaus cannot contest liability and will certainly have some damages imposed against them, not to mention costs (and potentially fees) - this could add up to a tidy sum. (The trial court still has leeway to do a lot -- it's still not going to take a very friendly view of Spamhaus. Trial courts have wide discretion in fact-finding and the trial judge could easily craft a damage award that's tough to assail.)
I'm not sure about the domain name issue that's floating around.
On a semi-related note, has anyone looked at Spamhaus's actions under UK law. I hear they have plaintiff-friendly libel laws over there?
Reply to this