e360 sues a vendor

As if suing themselves out of business by going after Comcast and Spamhaus weren’t enough, e360 is now suing Choicepoint for breach of contract and CAN SPAM violations. As usual, Mickey has all the documents (complaint and answer) up at SpamSuite.
This may actually be an interesting case. On the surface it is a contractual dispute. Choicepoint sold e360 40,000,000 data records containing contact information including email addresses, snail mail addresses and phone numbers. Some of the records were marked “I” meaning they could be used for email. Some of the records were marked “O” meaning they could not be used for email.
Despite these terms being reasonably well defined in the contract, e360 sent email to addresses in records marked “O.” Some of those addresses resulted in e360 being sued by recipients. During the course of the suit, e360 contacted Choicepoint and asked for indemnification. Choicepoint refused for a number of reasons, including the fact that Choicepoint told e360 the addresses were not for mailing. In response, e360 filed suit.
The interesting and relevant part of this case is the CAN SPAM violation that e360 alleges.

9. In her September 10, 2008, letter, Ms. Meredith Sidewater on behalf of ChoicePoint declined to indemnify e360 for the expenses and damages incurred by e360 in the three (3) disputes. See Letter attached hereto as Exhibit B. She claimed four (4) of the six (6) emails at issue in the disputes were “Optin Status of O,” which she contended means that the records were approved only for direct mail and not email.
10. If Ms. Sidewater’s assertion is true, this assertion constitutes an admission of violation of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003, which provides that if a recipient requests not to receive commercial email, then it is unlawful for the sender to release, sell, or transfer such person’s email address to a third party. Thus, ChoicePoint admits that it breached ¶ 12(a)(ii) of the Agreement. But for this breach, e360 would not have sent any emails to the complainants and would not have been sued.

CAN SPAM does indeed state that once someone has opted out from email that the address cannot be sold, transferred, leased for any purpose. If e360 prevails in this case it will have far reaching implications for a lot of senders and data brokers. I’ll be watching this one closely.

Delivery lore
Open Rate? Render Rate?

Related Posts

Data Integrity, part 2

Yesterday I blogged about eROIs contention that consumers should not be wasting the time of lead gen companies by filling in fake data. There were lots of good comments on the post, and I strongly encourage you to go read them if you are interested in different perspectives on the data issue.
One of the arguments I was making is that people are only going to give accurate information if they trust the website that is collecting information. I do, strongly, believe this. I also believe very strongly that websites collecting information need to do so defensively. It is the only way you can get good information.
This ties in with an earlier post about a website that collects email addresses from any visitor, then turns around and submits those addresses to webforms. Hundreds of mailing lists have already been corrupted by this group. They are a prime reason companies must design address collection process defensively. There are people who do bad things, who will take an opportunity to harass senders and recipients. This company is not the first, nor will they be the last to commit such abuses.
Taking a stand against abusive companies and people may be useful, but that will not stop the abuse. It is much easier to design process that limits the amount of abuse. For lead gen, in particular, confirmed opt-in is one way to limit the amount of bad data collected. As a side effect, it also results in less blocked mail, fewer complaints and better delivery.

Read More

The dog ate my discovery responses

When we last visited our intrepid litigants, Spamhaus’ lawyers had filed a motion to dismiss citing yet another failure by e360 to meet a court ordered discovery deadline.
Let me set the stage.
e360 misses deadline after deadline during discovery. They skip depositions. They stall and provide incomplete answers weeks or months after they are due. Finally, in mid-July the Spamhaus’ lawyers file a motion for sanctions. The judge, while sounding a bit peeved (as I detailed in my Aug 29 post), gives e360 yet another chance to actually comply with discovery at a July 30 hearing.
And how, how does e360 respond to the taxed patience of the judge? They miss that deadline, too!
With the mid-August discovery deadline missed, Spamhaus’ lawyers file for dismissal. The plaintiffs race to repair the damage and find a scapegoat.
The scapegoat turns out to be Mr. Peters, one of the lawyers working the case. At the July 30 hearing he petitioned the judge to be released from the case as he was leaving Synergy (e360’s law firm). In their response to the motion to dismiss, the lead attorney blames Mr. Peters for the most recent e360 failure to comply with the judge’s ruling. According to the response Mr. Peters was, despite being removed from the case, responsible for complying with the July 30 ruling. Oh, and the mean old Spamhaus attorneys should have known that e360 was going to comply and did not contact Synergy before filing the motion to dismiss and it is just not FAIR, your honor!
With far more patience than I could muster, the judge agrees to a hearing about the motion to dismiss on September 4. At that time, he agrees to allow e360 to file a supplement to their response to the motion to dismiss and gives Spamhaus the opportunity to respond to that supplemental motion.
Wonder of wonders, e360 finally gets their act together and manages to meet a court ordered deadline when they filed their supplemental motion. Not only that, they included answers to the interrogatories sent by Spamhaus almost a year ago. Magically, the amount of damages e360 claims has gone up by an order of magnitude and 16 new people now know about e360’s financials. Too bad that the judge closed discovery on July 30.
e360’s answers included some interesting financial details, including the fact that e360 managed to sue itself out of business. That takes some serious talent. The other fascinating factoid is that a company with gross income of, roughly, 2.7 million dollars over 5 years is worth over 95 million dollars. While they do provide a formula for how they arrived at that figure, I am deeply suspicious of their claims.
Spamhaus’ response is on point and catalogs all the e360 discovery failures. This most recent failure to meet the court’s deadline is only one in a long line of failures. They emphasized the fact that they have petitioned the court four separate times to compel answers from e360. And, really, Judge, how many times do you want us to have to come back and waste everyone’s time pointing out that, yet again, e360 did not do what you told them they had to do?
The judge will be ruling by mail. No more hearings, the man is done with this. One thing that I have wondered about is why he seems to be prolonging the pain. But, the case has already been kicked back to him from the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals and I suspect he is loathe to do anything that might prompt a successful second appeal. Recent transcripts make it clear he is getting quite peeved that this is still on his docket. Really, all e360 had to do was provide the information they used to come up with the original 11M figure when the case was filed. Their reticence and inability to show any documentation on how they came up with that figure suggests that the figure may have been more wishful thinking than a real number.

Read More

Email news

ReturnPath sold its email change of address division to Fresh Address and spun off its email marketing division. Full announcement at the RP Blog and a copy of the press release at EmailKarma.
e360 petitioned the court earlier this week to compel Spamhaus to expand on their answers to e360’s interrogatories. Today the court denied the motion. Text of the motion at Mickey’s place.
There has been a noticeable increase in registrar phishing over the last week. This may be related to ICANN de-accrediting ESTHosts, a registrar well known in the anti-spam community for registering domains used in phising and spam. UPDATE from ICANN.

Read More