Sound familiar? You log onto Facebook, only to be bombarded with angry messages from your friends about why you had the audacity to send them a virus or a faulty link. Looks like you’ve been a victim of those dreaded SPAM messages!
Last week, there was another landmark judgment in the arena of social networking websites v. spammers. Facebook won approximately $700M for damages in a case v. the so-called ‘Spam King”, Sanford Wallace. Wallace hacked into numerous Facebook user’s accounts and sent fake wall posts and messages to that user’s Facebook friends. The California Federal Judge, Jeremy Fogel, ruled that Wallace violated both the US CAN-SPAM Act and the California Anti-Phishing Law.
The CAN-SPAM Act stands for Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act of 2003. Per the FTC website, The CAN-SPAM Act “sets the rules for commercial email, establishes requirements for commercial messages, gives recipients the right to have you stop emailing them, and spells out tough penalties for violations.”
Tough penalties are right! Wallace still owes MySpace $230M for a judgment in May 2008 (for spamming, of course). So, if we add these two amounts together, Wallace owes approximately $930M to Facebook and MySpace. Does anyone else think that these fines are a tad bit outlandish? Shouldn’t Facebook be worried about the likelihood that Wallace will actually be able to pay those amounts?
Sam O’Rourke, Associate General Counsel at Facebook, seems to have a different take on the monterary value of the judgements. He is quoted as stating, ‘The fact that we get hundreds of millions of dollars in judgments is great, and we try to collect on those, but the goal is to stop spam. It’s not a revenue generator.” But, why CAN’T these judgments be a revenue generator? If these spammers are legitimately causing damage and disruptions on these websites, they should be forced to pay! The judges should rule for damages in a more reasonable amount – like $100K to $500K. Now THESE are much more feasible amounts to collect, don’t you think?
Sure, now Wallace won’t be doing anymore spamming on Facebook or Myspace, but how about the plethora of other social media sites? (Think Twitter, LinkedIn, Yelp, etc.) Wallace will just continue what he’s been doing and be served with a ridiculous fine that no one expects him to fully pay. In fact, in June 2009, Wallace filed for bankruptcy. Good luck ever seeing your ‘winnings’, Facebook and MySpace!
Yes, these cases MIGHT scare other spammers away for the mere fact that they don’t want to be slapped with million dollar lawsuits. However, then they’ll see examples like this where a reputable spammer will probably end up sneaking away from any accountability. If that’s the case, what would deter future spammers from doing the same exact thing? Perhaps lowering the amount in damages would be a good start…
Posted by Melanie on November 5, 2009 at 2:21 pm.
