Date | Who | Complaint | Result |
2000 |
Exactis v MAPS |
RBL Listing |
Settled out of court; Exactis agrees to take steps to prevent
spamming, MAPS agrees to not list Exactis again. |
2000 |
Yesmail v MAPS |
RBL Listing |
Yesmail agrees to switch to confirmed opt-in. |
2000 |
Harris Interactive v MAPS, AOL, Microsoft, Qwest, et al |
RBL Listing |
Harris drops lawsuit,
agrees
to use confirmed opt-in. MAPS removes Harris from RBL |
2001 |
Black Ice v MAPS |
RBL Listing |
|
2000 |
Media3 v MAPS |
RBL Listing |
Court denies Media3 request for TRO.
Settled out of court;
MAPS continues to list spamware sites in RBL. |
2000 |
Gartman v Ritz (1) |
interference with contract |
Tossed for lack of service |
2000 |
Gartman v Ritz (2) |
interference with contract |
Tossed for lack of jurisdiction |
2000 |
Gartman v Ritz (3) |
interference with contract |
Withdrawn after jurisdictional challenge |
2000 |
Stemple v Ritz |
interference with contract |
Withdrawn after jurisdictional challenge |
2001 |
Actrix v. ORBS
|
Open Relay listing |
ORBS
lost.
ORBS
ceased
operation, June 2001.
[Salon]
|
2001 |
iMatcher v Lugo |
Retaliation for spam complaint |
Withdrawn by plaintiff after case moved to federal court.
May be the first case of a lawsuit against
a private individual for simply reporting apparent AUP violations. |
2002 |
T3 Direct
vs Joseph McNicol |
Retaliation for spam complaint |
Dismissed by court. |
2003 |
Haberstroh v. Jay Stuler
[silicon.com],
[slashdot],
[Surriel.com]
|
Retaliation for spam complaint |
Settled
out of court;
details not disclosed. |
2003 |
EMarketersAmerica.org
v Spamhaus, et al |
ROKSO listing |
Dismissed with prejudice when plaintiffs withdrew. |
2003 |
Moore vs Uy
[Spam Kings]
|
Invasion of privacy (Uy had maintained a web site which alleged Moore
was the "Dr. Fatburn" spammer, and gave his address and other personal
information. |
Won by Uy |
2004 |
Pallorium
v. Osirusoft
|
Open Relay listing |
Osirusoft won,
but at great expense.
Open Relay list service discontinued by Osirusoft.
Appeals court
rules
that the Communications Decency Act gives listing services immunity
from liability as long as they're acting in good faith. |
2004 |
Optinrealbig.com vs. Spamcop
|
Trade libel, unfair trade practices |
Settled.
Spamcop will continue listing Optinrealbig; Optinrealbig will
continue emailing as before. Other terms of settlement confidential.
U.S. District Court rules that SpamCop is subject to immunity under
§230 of the Communications Decency Act.
|
2004 |
Buckeye Cablevision vs. Spamcop |
|
|
2004 |
AAW Marketing vs Julian Haight |
|
Dismissed |
2005 |
Reynolds v Falk |
Defamation |
Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
2005 |
Sierra v Falk |
Publishing whois and dns data without permission |
Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
2005 |
Sierra v Ritz
[Chilling Effects]
|
Publishing whois and dns data without permission |
Still in court |
2005 |
FreeSpeechStore v AHBL |
|
|
2006 |
Tift v Ferguson |
malicious usenet postings |
|
2006 |
E360insight vs Spamhaus |
ROKSO Listing |
Still in court |
2006 |
E360insight vs various spam-fighters |
Defamation, tortious interference |
Case not yet begun |