SpamCop operates an anti-spam "blocklist" that can be used by
third parties as a reference to block junk e-mails. The list is
compiled by users informing SpamCop when they receive an unwanted
e-mail. SpamCop then uses the information to determine the Internet
Protocol (IP) addresses used to send the messages, and forwards the
complaints to the ISPs serving those addresses.
OptIn sued SpamCop in May, arguing that its activities interfere
with OptIn's business by causing ISPs to block its e-mail
marketing.
OptIn also alleged that SpamCop's refusal to disclose the
identity of the complainants could add to potential violations of
the new US Can-Spam Act, which requires the removal of people from
mailing lists if they chose. This, it argued, is impossible unless
the complainant can be identified.
The District Court initially granted a temporary restraining
order against SpamCop because, according to reports, SpamCop was
late in filing its opposition to the suit. The order was rescinded
a day later.
Late last month Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong refused to grant a
preliminary injunction against SpamCop, on the grounds that the US
Communications Decency Act (CDA) does not create liability for
service providers who merely publish content created by third
parties, and therefore SpamCop is not liable for publishing, or
passing on, e-mail complaints from users.
If SpamCop had altered the content of the complaints, said the
ruling, there may well have been liability under the CDA.
According to CNET News.com, Keith Valory, lawyer for IronPort,
SpamCop's parent company, commented, "We're encouraged that the
judge ruled that SpamCop's service is immune from liabilities for
publishing or distributing user complaints regarding spam under
CDA".
"We think this significantly strengthens the company's position
in this case and in the future," he added.
According to a report on Clickz News, a lawyer for OptIn, Steven
Richter, responded, "We're disappointed in the court's ruling
regarding the denial of the preliminary injunction, but at the same
time the judge issued her denial we filed an amended complaint. We
believe the complaint has brought to the court's attention more
facts for the court to consider as the case moves forward."
Disclaimer: We hope you find OUT-LAW’s content useful. It’s prepared by the lawyers at Pinsent Masons. Please remember, though, that it’s intended as general information only. It’s not legal advice. If that’s what you’re seeking, please
contact us. See also: our
full disclaimer
