Are Courts Getting Tired of Spam Plaintiffs?
Prof. Goldman posts on an Ohio District Court decision here granting an intermediary summary judgment against claims brought by a lawyer/anti-spammer. Check out Prof. Goldman's post for a reaction to the ruling. Access a copy of the order here [pdf].
I don't have much to add, except I'll say that anti-spammers have through their bad litigation tactics and poor choice of defendants built up a significant body of negative precedent (against themselves). Courts have time and time been good about sniffing out bad claims. The Ohio state spam statute is one of the many casualties here.
Posted by Venkat at 10/8/2008 7:08 AM 
Categories: CAN-SPAM, Investigation and Enforcement, Anti-Spammers
Categories: CAN-SPAM, Investigation and Enforcement, Anti-Spammers
I'm not convinced that the courts have *ever* liked spam plaintiffs. Except in the cases where the plaintiffs have been very rich (e.g. Microsoft), or when the spammers defaulted, the courts have been pretty consistently pro-spam.
Reply to this
My sense is that courts don't treat spam plaintiffs as different from any other. I would think if anything they would be sympathetic to them, given that everyone gets spam and doesn't care for it.
I think what tends to turn off courts and judges is any sort of rabid approach. I think anti-spammers definitely use this a lot and this doesn't serve them well.
Reply to this