Damages Awarded for Receiving Spam

7 comments

An Internet consultant who won damages in a Scottish court after he received a single unwanted email has launched a campaign to help people tackle "spammers".

He did get damages awarded - but it was not as it first appears...

Smith argues that Dick did not even "win" the case, but was awarded damages by default after Transcom dropped its defence to avoid huge legal bills.

Full Story

Will it ever become the norm to sue a company, or individual - and win damages- for sending 'spam'?

Comments

What's wrong with that...

If I got 1 penny for each spam message I got, I could of retired a decade ago. I got flooded with
10,000 spam messages just yesterday. It's crap.. I can't stand that stuff...

Spam is horrific in terms of damages to a company when one has to shift though 20,000 crap messages to find an actual work related e-mail.

I hate seeing 'real'

I hate seeing 'real' companies getting slammed for a problem that is caused but the totally blatant Internet spammers.
the problem with this situation is that the only wins will be against real companies with addresses and registered businesses. While some companies may flirt with the spam laws registered UK companies are never going to be behind the large majority of spam. Even if they are, they'll hind their identity as best they can.
We need to avoid concepts like this gaining momentum or legitimate online companies will be taking the heat for the millions of C1@lis emails for a minor breach of any laws.

The small claims courts stink

The small claims court is geared towards scum like this who sue companies because companies realise that settling is cheaper than defending. My company has been milked like this by customers numerous times. There are certain goods that tend to attract these low lifes.

The small claims courts tend to be biased in favour of the customer (when it's customer against company). The bias starts right at the venue for the hearing itself - the customer can have it at his local court whether he's plaintiff or defendent and the company may have to trot half way around the country. If they don't trek all the way down and just send in documented, clear-cut evidence that they are in the right ... they will lose the case. The pompous jackasses who sit in these small claims courts take it as a personal insult if you don't make it in person to pay homage to their greatness and power.

Not News - Move along.

This is a non news story, it doesnt set any president. Default judgement is worth nothing to the rest of us. The guy was a chancer (or maybe just fed up with receiving shit all the time) and got lucky. How were damages assesed - they werent.
I cant blame this man who was probably just as pissed off as the rest of us to receive spam. I'm thinking of doing it myself just to irritate a few companies who irritate me on a regular basis. Small claims cost next to nothing to run if you do it personally. Send me spam...it'll cost you. Might slow a few companies down a bit, maybe we should all try it.

"Transcom dropped its

"Transcom dropped its defence to avoid huge legal bills"

Bollocks.

I don't get it

Get a spam filter. Mine works 99%. One or 2 from 100 spams slip through the net each day but it's not really a problem.

Spam is horrific in terms of

Quote:
Spam is horrific in terms of damages to a company when one has to shift though 20,000 crap messages to find an actual work related e-mail.

That's just silly. If you're doing business by that method (sorting through 20k emails to find a few good ones) you are horribly inefficient and should die (as a business, that is).

Sorry. It's just silly. Get a spam filter and make sure everybody knows you never check the spam box... just-like-everybody-else. That puts the pressure back on the spam filter companies and mail server admins where it belongs, not the end user.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.