Comcast and e360 settle lawsuit
e360 initially filed suit against Comcast early in 2008. They asserted a number of things, including that Comcast was fraudulently returning “user unknown” notices and that they were certified by ReturnPath. Comcast filed a countersuit alleging violations of CAN SPAM, violations of the computer fraud and abuse act, as well as a number of other things including abuse of process. In April of 2008 the judge ruled in favor of Comcast and dismissed e360’s case, while allowing the countersuit to proceed.
Over the last 18 months, the suit has moved through the courts. There have been significant delays in the case, and e360 seems to have been dragging their feet based on some of the motions filed by Comcast asking the judge to compel e360 to follow through on discovery.
The agreement also prohibits mail from defendants that:
- contains any false headers, including fraudulent or false corporate information
- contains any false or misleading subject lines
- lacks clear and conspicuous notice of the ability to opt-out
- identifies the sender only as a domain name
- lacks a valid physical postal address and the actual name of the sender
- uses or redirects users to any IP address that does not contain accurate identification.
The last 3 points are the biggies. They require that e360 stand up and stand behind any email they send. No more hiding behind false fronts, drop boxes, domains by proxy or any of the other ways that spammers hide their connection with the spam.
Comcast has crafted an agreement that stops e360, or any of Dave Linhardt’s businesses, from spamming their users. And they have expressly prohibited many of the standard techniques spammers use to hide their connection with the spam.
A settlement agreement isn’t precedent, which is a bit of a shame. A legal precedent that says that hiding behind domains by proxy, hiding behind random and rotating domain names and hiding a sender’s corporate identity from email recipients is a violation of any of the statues that Comcast sued under would be a good thing. Sure, spammers will continue to do all those things, but they will be further marginalized from legitimate by their violation of case law.
Previous blog entries about e360 v. Comcast:
- e360 in court again
- Legal filings this week
- e360 v. Comcast part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4
- Judge rules in e360 v. Comcast