Seventh Circuit Awards e360 a Whopping $3 in Damages Against Spamhaus -- e360 v. Spamhaus

Discussion in 'In The News' started by JohnFarrell, Sep 3, 2011.

  1. JohnFarrell

    JohnFarrell VIP

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    828
    Likes Received:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    0
    September 02, 2011
    Seventh Circuit Awards e360 a Whopping $3 in Damages Against Spamhaus -- e360 v. Spamhaus

    [Post by Venkat Balasubramani]

    e360 Insight, Inc. v. The Spamhaus Project, 10-3538 & 10-3539 (7th Cir. Sept. 2, 2011)

    The lawsuit between e360 and Spamhaus was a long-running, tortured affair, and it looks like it finally came to a close. With e360 being awarded a whopping $3 in damages against Spamhaus. (Here's a link to Ars Technica's recap of the oral argument, where Judge Posner blasted e360's counsel: "This is just totally irresponsible litigation . . . .You can't just come into a court with a fly-by-night, nothing company and say 'I've lost $130 million.'")

    Background: e360 sued Spamhaus, a UK entity, for damages allegedly resulting from being identified as a "known spammer." It sued Spamhaus for tortious interference and defamation. Spamhaus removed to federal court and asserted lack of personal jurisdiction. It then withdrew its answer and decided that it did not wish to defend against e360's claims. e360 sought and obtained a default judgment, and the district court granted e360's request for damages and awarded e360 $11,715,000 in damages. Spamhaus moved to set aside the judgment, and when this request was refused, appealed to the Seventh Circuit. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the default judgment but remanded for a proper determination of damages.

    Back at the district court, e360 was left with the task of proving up its damages, but it suffered a slew of discovery foibles. e360's principal failed to appear for his deposition as scheduled and failed to respond to Spamhaus's interrogatory requests. Spamhaus moved to dismiss on the basis of e360's discovery failures, and the trial court gave e360 another opportunity to address the discovery issues. e360 supplemented its previous responses but added a slew of new witnesses. It also increased its damages estimate from $11.7 million to a "whopping $135 million." It also sought to reopen discovery. The trial court said no dice and struck the new witnesses listed by e360 and struck e360's requested damage award to the extent it exceeded the initial $11.7 million request. After a bench trial on damages, the trial court awarded e360 "a mere $27,002, a far cry from the millions of dollars that e360 sought." Both parties appealed.

    Discussion: The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's sanction (of striking the new request for damages and the newly listed witnesses), finding that the district court exercised its discretion "with considerable restraint." It also affirmed the district court's exclusion of a spreadsheet prepared by e360's principal which listed e360's damages at $135,173,577. (The week before trial e360 revised this number to $122,271,346.) The Seventh Circuit also affirmed the district court's exclusion of the bulk of the testimony on e360's behalf:

    The district court gave Linhardt's testimony no weight because he was not credible.

    Finally, the court gets to the actual damage award of $27,000. The district court cited to Linhardt's testimony regarding contracts with three customers who collectively paid e360 $27,000 per month for services performed. As a result of Spamhaus's actions, the district court found that e360 lost these contracts. Spamhaus argued on appeal that it was not appropriate for the district court to award the entire contract amounts as this amount represented revenue rather than profit. The Seventh Circuit agreed, saying that although Linhardt may have adduced credible testimony as to these three contracts, e360's failure to put forth any evidence on what portion constituted profits versus overhead was fatal to the damage award.

    Ultimately the court ends up awarding nominal damages as to the three claims raised by e360, for a whopping award of three dollars:

    By failing to comply with its basic discovery obligations, a party can snatch defeat from the jaws of certain victory. After our earlier remand, all e360 needed to do was provide a reasonable estimate of the harm it suffered from Spamhaus's conduct. Rather than do so, however, e360 engaged in a pattern of delay that ultimately cost it the testimony of all but one witness with any personal knowledge of its damages. That lone witness lost all credibility when he painted a wildly unrealistic picture of e360's losses. Having squandered its opportunity to present its case, e360 must content itself with nominal damages on each of its claims, and nothing more.

    Ouch.
    ____

    Spamhaus ended up traveling the long road and ultimately defeating e360, but it's nice to see it prevail. As the Holomaxx v. Yahoo and Microsoft cases indicate, lawsuits brought by emailers against ISPs or filtering services face a long and uphill road, which should lead to a dead end. ("Bulk Emailers (Mostly) Lose Three 47 USC 230(c)(2) Rulings--Holomaxx v. Microsoft/Yahoo & Smith v. TRUSTe;" "Court Affirms Robust ISP Protection For Blocking Bulk Emails -- Holomaxx v. Microsoft/Yahoo.")
     
  2. DaMadHatter

    DaMadHatter Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2011
    Messages:
    720
    Likes Received:
    51
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    In the Void
    I think that the greater importance is more in the verdict (i.e. Spamhaus loses) than the dollar amount.

    In the end, while they can prove the influence of the Haus hurt their business. It sounds like they were shooting for the moon on damages. Which ultimately won them $3.
     
  3. JohnFarrell

    JohnFarrell VIP

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    828
    Likes Received:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I fully agree. The verdict is more important than the dollar amount.
     
  4. DoldGigga

    DoldGigga VIP

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2011
    Messages:
    698
    Likes Received:
    73
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Funny how this case was allowed to go to trial but the holomaxx case, which actually had merit and raised a lot of valid points that warranted a trial, was dismissed. At least the verdict was in e360's favor...
     
  5. mx10

    mx10 VIP

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2011
    Messages:
    535
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    18
    yeah this fiasco leads you to believe if a competent person with real accounting and a serious legal team took on spamhaus they might get somewhere with it.

    you can't just start an llc do 2 blasts get on spamhaus and then sue, you would need to be producing consistently high revenue for something like 6 months or a year before you got an SBL effectively shutting you down.

    it's pretty unlikely because any mailer who is good enough to make the kind of revenue that would get a high damage award already knows how to avoid spamhaus, so they would have to want to take the fight on for it's own sake.
     
  6. DoldGigga

    DoldGigga VIP

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2011
    Messages:
    698
    Likes Received:
    73
    Trophy Points:
    28
    I still maintain that mailers, as a whole, should be taking these legal issues more seriously and not simply sitting on the sidelines and watching. I do think that email needs to be regarded as a form of private communications that cannot be tampered with by any service provider, unless there is a court order to do so. Spam filters can be provided to end users, but not implemented by the service providers themselves.
     
  7. airin

    airin Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2011
    Messages:
    766
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Key Largo, FL!
    I agree. There is a small segment of the PMA dedicated to email marketing. I think this needs to grow and become an actual focus for them.

    Richard Newman and MediaTrust are both active in the association. I think this is definitely something that should be looked into.
     
  8. Bubbles

    Bubbles VIP

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2011
    Messages:
    314
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Peter Bordes from Media Trust has the resources to go the distance against Spamhaus. If he actually took on that challenge and brought them down I would give them 100% of my business and I'm sure there are many others that would reward MT that way as well.
     
  9. DaMadHatter

    DaMadHatter Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2011
    Messages:
    720
    Likes Received:
    51
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    In the Void
    All are good points.
    :alcoholic:
     
  10. PushSend

    PushSend VIP

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2011
    Messages:
    1,927
    Likes Received:
    141
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Paradise
    I wanna know if the CockHaus will actuall PAY the 3 bucks or if they'll simply maintain the status quo and blow this off. I mean, if they pay it would send a clear signal that they acknowledge a wrong doing and thus would be opening the flood gates for more law suits, no? Which means that they literally HAVE to ignore this ruling if they want to stay in business.

    And I completely agree with DG in that the spam filters need to be 'offered' to users, not implemented on their behalf by the ISP's.

    While Peter as well as many others might have the resources to got up against the 'Haus, it would take something catastrophic for him/them to do so IMO. Really, what would need to happen is someone like Groupon (insert big ass advertiser) to come out and say that SH is fuckin' up their revenue by blocking legitimate mail to their opted in recipients. At which point they could show clear and concise data reflecting lost revenue and go after actual damages. And then, as an ally of said advertisers these networks like MT and others could stand side by side with them and show numbers from their publisher side to support the arguments without AS MUCH fear of having their network get SBL'd.

    But that's just my opinion.

    :thefinger: - for you Haus!
     
  11. Fun4uoc

    Fun4uoc VIP

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2011
    Messages:
    605
    Likes Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    28
    That's exactly what they'll do.

    Far too arrogant to admit any kind of wrongdoing, regardless of the amount.
     
  12. JohnFarrell

    JohnFarrell VIP

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    828
    Likes Received:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What will happen is someone from nanae will pay it and they'll claim it was paid by spamhaus supporters.
     
  13. roundabout

    roundabout VIP

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2011
    Messages:
    2,713
    Likes Received:
    154
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Heres the joke going around...

    "Your honor, my client wishes to inquire whether the plaintiff can break a five."
     

Share This Page