Feeds

back to article ISP slapped with $807,000 fee for 'groundless' spam case

An internet service provider that has brought more than 20 lawsuits alleging spam abuses has been ordered to pay one of the defendants almost $807,000 for filing "groundless claims" that mired the company in years of costly litigation. The $806,978.84 judgment was filed against Asis Internet Services, the same tiny ISP that …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
Gold badge

Not opportunists

These companies are not opportunists, other ISPs are simply not collecting money they are allowed under the law to collect. The FTC does not do it's job of pursuing spammers at any realistic rate, so a few ISPs make it a point to do so. Spammers, guess what! If you don't spam, they will not sue you!

As for this judgement, it's a shame, but really if no information turns up they should have given it up and let that one get away far earlier.

2
1
Coat

Something in the air?

For those unfamiliar with the area, Garberville is in the heart of the Northern California pot-growing area.

Coincidence, or one too many business-plan meeting in a smoke-filled room?

Now which pocket did I put that box of Cracker-Jacks in?

0
0
Bronze badge

Double Standard?

Obviously, if someone is innocent of any crime, then they should not have to pay one cent out of their own pocket if, as a result of being accused of a crime, they need to hire a lawyer. So I fail to see how the standard being requested could be granted. Of course, the big problem is that the $2 million they won in another suit likely will never be seen, while the $300,000 awarded here really will have to get paid.

3
1
Silver badge

Mmmm...

The way I see it, a person innocent of a crime should (in an ideal world) end up "not losing". However reaching the point of judgement and being found innocent can tie up staff and time and resources and unforgivable amounts in legal fees. They might get some or all of these expenses back, but until this point, they needed to cough up.

0
0

You've got to respect the innovative business mind behind "Azoogle.com".

He said sarcastically. Are they allowed to do that?

0
0
Unhappy

This is really too bad

Azoogle (aka Epic Advertising) is a well-known pain in the collective arse of the ISP community It's sad that Alex "Teflon" Zhardanovsky managed to weasel out of this one at the expense of a small ISP.

Zhardanovsky is no stranger to SPAM litigation: I recall that in pre-trial discovery in the infamous "Get a "Free" Plasma TV" spam case a few years ago, Azoogle admitted to hiring the Ralsky spam gang to sent out the spam.

2
0
This topic is closed for new posts.