Spam Arrest Loses Lawsuit

Written by Sue Walsh on September 27, 2013

Spam filtering service Spam Arrest has lost their lawsuit against a marketing company it spam lawclaims agreed to their terms of service and then broke them. The company offers a white-listing service as a spam filter. It intercepts unfamiliar emails and demands the sender complete a CAPTCHA if they want their message to be received. The sender is also required to agree to Spam Arrest’s terms of service which prohibit unsolicited commercial email (Anyone who has ever sent an email to an Earthlink member is probably familiar with the process). Once the sender complies, their email address is whitelisted and they can email the recipient freely in the future. This type of service is looked on rather dimly by security experts because those who use them seldom bother to whitelist people they correspond with regularly, forcing them to jump through the Spam Arrest hoops, and furthermore when they contact a company’s customer service or tech support email, they don’t bother to whitelist that email address either. The bottom line is people shouldn’t have to jump through hoops to email you.

Getting back to the lawsuit, Spam Arrest sued marketing firm Sentient Jet, saying the company agreed to the terms of service and then proceed to spam their users with over 600 advertising emails. They demanded $2,000 per spam message claiming breach of contract. A U.S. District Court Judge disagreed and threw the suit out, saying Spam Arrest could not prove that Sentient Jet had entered into a legally binding contract. It had no paper trail or signatures.

Neither company has commented on the decision.  What do you think? Was Spam Arrest in the right or way out of line?

Comments

Anna October 1, 2013

Shouldn’t a court case involve papers and evidence? Did Spam Arrest and their lawyer provide the required evidence? Did they have proof that Sentient Jet really entered into an agreement with them? If they had, then I’d wonder why the District Court Judge threw the case away. On the other hand, a lot of marketing companies use clever strategies and tactics that make their work do not appear like spam. Maybe that’s what happened. If this was the case, then only spam experts and insiders will be able to point out the difference between what’s legible and what’s not. Not all court personnel are familiar with how spammers work. That’s just my opinion, though.

  • (required)
  • (required)