October 17, 2007
Stanford Students Sue Spammers
Charities like Second Harvest and the Darfur Stove Project can thank e-mail spam for financing their operations. Or, more appropriately, they can thank Joe Wagner, a graduate student at Stanford University who has sued spam merchants and made sure any awards or settlements are donated to charitable causes.
This summer Mr. Wagner and David Cannon, another graduate student at Stanford, filed suit in California small-claims court against a number of companies accused of firing off unsolicited e-mail messages. According to The Stanford Daily, the student plaintiffs made the spammers an offer: Give the money to charity, and we’ll dismiss the charges. Most of the companies agreed, but four businesses — Valueclick, WorldAvenue, SubscriberBASE, and Azoogle — decided to settle the cases in court.
A claims-court judge ruled that those companies must all pay damages, which would mean more money for Mr. Wagner’s and Mr. Cannon’s charities of choice. But the businesses have appealed the decision, and it may take a few weeks before the new verdict comes in. —Brock Read
Comments
Commenting is closed for this article.
Previous: Louisiana Officials Announce a Huge Data Loss
Next: Educause Names New Chief Executive
Joe Wagner has displayed a tremendous amount of courage to bring suit against spam merchants. I applaud his efforts.
William Allan Kritsonis, PhD
— William Allan Kritsonis Oct 17, 11:22 PM #
This is not likely to be settled anytime soon, as the article suggests, since the definition of spam raises all kinds of First Amendment concerns, which businesses have typically invoked as the legal basis for sending out advertising junk mail through the U.S. Postal Service. There is spam and there is spam, and about the only thing that all spam has in common is that the recipient does not want it. I would not be surprised to see this and related cases going all the way to the Supreme Court before any kind of test is established as to what kind of spam constitutes an abuse of free speech. In the meantime, expect the local courts to side with the plaintiffs—but don’t be surprised if the high court overrules these decisions and sides with defendants in many cases.
Landrum Kelly, Ph.D.
— Landrum Kelly Oct 18, 06:22 AM #
The root of the problem is that one person’s spam (unwanted) is another’s valued information (wanted) — and no matter how sophisticated target marketing becomes, it will never reach 100% accuracy.
— JPS Oct 18, 11:40 AM #
JPS, I respectfully disagree. The root problem with spam is that the receiver is the one who is saddled with most of the costs of the message. In contrast, physical junk mail is paid for by the sender.
— Kevin Guidry Oct 18, 11:53 AM #
In support of Kevin, please note that because SPAM is (almost) free, the spammers have no incentive to reach 10% accuracy, much less 100%. I don’t receive much USPS bulk mail on ways to increase my sexual pleasure, on refinancing my home, or on purchasing ink jet supplies.
— Mike Lutz Oct 18, 04:57 PM #
I beg to differ re who bears the cost of physical junk mail – we all do, thru the damage to the environment that results from cutting down all those trees, using gas to deliver the tons of physical spam thru the mail and from overflowing land fills! Both kinds of spam should be outlawed. And when possible make the senders of physical spam pay twice by mailing it back to them in their own postage-paid envelopes. If you leave your name on the letters you receive and write “no more offers” on them, it cuts down on what you get – I haven’t received an unsolicited credit card offer for months!
— TDD Oct 18, 05:41 PM #
TDD, I’m sure you’re right about the ultimate cost, but in terms of tangible costs that hold up in court, I believe Mike is correct.
HOWEVER, I’ve been employing your “make ‘em pay twice” method for many years. It really does cut down on the number of mail solicitations I receive. Every time I move, I have to start all over, but it really does work. In addition to returning the application or order form or whatever that has my name on it, I also return every slip of paper that comes with it, including the outer envelope. It really jacks up the price of the postage when I send them back a fat envelope full of their own trash!
— Carlo Oct 19, 10:09 AM #
Kudos to Wagner for funneling the $40K to the charities. For once, SPAM made into something tasty.
— Tracy S Oct 19, 01:58 PM #
I applaud their efforts and I think it would be a PR nightmare four those 4 companies to not settle. That would make them look anti-charity.
— Drew Williams Oct 20, 08:45 PM #