Internal Memo

FROM: xiaoyu

SUBJECT: Case Analysis

_____________________________________________________________________

With the development of technology, most of people use computer to work, shop or contact with each other. However, technology makes our lives easier, but sometimes give us trouble. Almost everyone doesn’t like receiving spam when they check their email. Spam usually influence people’s life. We find a case, which is about spam. Plaintiff OPTINREALBIG.COM, LLC (“OptIn”) is in the business of sending bulk commercial e-mails. Defendant. SpamCop, is in the business of collecting complaints from recipients of alleged spam and forwarding these complaints to Internet Service Providers (“ISPs”). ISPS, which supply Internet bandwidth to the purported spammers. In the U.S, spam cost companies more than $10 billion every year in cash wasted. Also spam consumes system resources such disk storage space, processor cycles and bandwidth, which slows delivery of normal communication and consumes. OptIn’s founder, Scott Richter has been described in various press reports as “the world’s third-largest spammer”. In other words, SpamCop is not the only entity describing OptIn as a spammer. SpamCop forwards complains to ISPs to encourage ISPs to sanction spammers, including cutting off the spammer’s bandwidth. In addition, SpamCop will removal of the registered user’s names to protect the privacy of the registered user. ISPs do not rely on the reports by SpamCop, it also refer to newsgroups and mailing lists. In this case, OptIn states that SpamCop inflated the complaints against OptIn. That caused ISPs to curtail the bandwidth of OptIn. In the end, the OptIn’s motion for a preliminary injunction is denied.

According to the case, OptIn think SpamCop sends multiple copies of the same reports to ISPs, and SpamCop makes the number of report that against OptIn is increasing. Therefor, SpamCop makes one complaint to multiple complaints that can’t be separated because SampCop has already remove the complainant’s information from the report. SpamCop further explains that it does not intentionally send multiple copies of the same complaint to the same ISP. Its software is not designed to do so. If the multiple copies are being sent, it is for the other reason. In addition, OptIn based its preliminary injunction on: trade libel, intentional interference with contractual relations and unfair competition. About the trade libel, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant. Firstly, it made a statement that disparages the quality of the plaintiff’s product. The offending statement was couched as fact, not opinion. Or the statement was false. The statement was made with malice. Finally, the statement result resulted in monetary loss. The court find that SpamCop’s sending of the same report to not just OptIn’s originating ISP, but to any ISP to which SpamCop can trace the alleges spam is a statement that disparages Optin, and the accusation of spam in touch as fact. OptIn has had its bandwidth reduces by Optigate and its bandwidth cut by IPWS. The second preliminary injunction is interference with contractual relations. To prevail on claim for interference with prospective economic advantages; a plaintiff must prove the existence of an economic relationship between the plaintiff and a third party.

After looking through the case “OPTINREALBIG.COM.V.IRONPORT SYSTEMS”, I have found a current business case that related to the case we read in the class. The case is also talked about the spam. “The California statute prohibits ‘falsified, misrepresented, or forged’ header information. The court starts out by discussing CAN-SPAM preemption. It notes the two prevailing cases in the area. The result of those cases is that the plaintiff must show the materiality of any falsity in the header information”. (Balasubarmani, web). In the case, the plaintiff thinks that the spam that they received has a false composition. It has violated the California’s spam statutes. The statute stipulated that the spam couldn’t include messages that are falsified; forged and misrepresented, message should be true. “The court says that the majority of the emails are not misleading because they contained ample indicia of their origin: a link to the advertiser’s website, an unsubscribe link, and the sender’s mailing address.” (Balasubarmani, web). These are the essential conditions that a legal email should have. So the plaintiff is trying to raise some countervailing arguments that the spam violated. There are three reasons showing the case is legal. First, the name of domain is without label and also violate the statute. Second, the senders don’t obey the original formalities. Thirdly, the domain could not be traceable to the actual sender. I think these are the basic rule to be a legal spam.

Works Cited

"Two Recent Spam Cases Look at Falsification of Origin and Subject Line

Claims."  Technology Marketing Law Blog. Venkat Balasubarmani, 06 Mar. 2015.Web. 11 May 2015. < http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2015/03/two-recent-spam-cases-look-at-falsification-of-origin-and-subject-line-claims.htm>.