ACLB2B
|
California
Cases |
|
All of the entities referenced on this page advertised in
and/or "sent" me and/or my clients spam
(i.e., "unsolicited commercial email"), meaning they did not have direct consent
as defined by California Bus. & Prof. Code ง 17529.1(d). In some cases, the entities listed below are the actual senders. In some cases, the entities below are "spamvertisers" they advertise in spam sent by contracted third party agents. A few of them are spam networks, who sign up as affiliates of the advertisers and then further outsource the actual sending to their own third party agents. And a few are contracted email senders, but if the emails originate from their servers and the clickthrough links point to their servers, then they're advertising in the spams too. I use the term principal on my website not to mean A is a CEO, President, Vice President, Secretary, Director, etc. of B. Rather, as discussed on the Spam and the Law page, I use the term principal in the context of agent-principal liability, which says that the principal is liable for the [unlawful] actions of the agent. In the world of spamming, agent could mean either that A actively hired B to spam on its behalf, or A operates an affiliate program and passively allowed B to sign up by click-click-clicking through a web-based form agreement. It doesnt really matter which; liability still flows uphill from agent to principal.
Moniker Privacy Services LLC and Oversee.net Inc. Four plaintiffs, including me, sued Moniker because Moniker was the legal owner of porn/fake "adult dating" websites at the time we received the spams. Read the complaint here. Numerous sources, including ICANN, WIPO, several courts, several registrars, and Moniker itself state that a proxy registration service is the legal owner of proxy-registered domain names. Moniker can cross-complain if it wants to against its licensee, but that doesn't change the fact that it's the legal owner and liable.
TropicInks LLC, Datastream Group Inc., and Leigh-Ann Colquhoun Scroll down to 2005, and you'll see a lawsuit against DSG Direct Inc., Your-Info Inc. et al. The Court entered judgment in my favor in 2008. I seized 1% of the judgment by levying on AmEx payments to DSG Direct. Two months later, Leigh-Ann Colquhoun the sole corporate officer of DSG Direct and Your-Info caused the companies to dissolve. Two weeks later, Colquhoun starts up TropicInks LLC... operating the same websites from the same physical address, and she is one of but two officers. Datastream Group Inc. is the legal owner of the websites. I filed a motion to amend the judgment based on alter ego, successor, and corporate officer theories of liability, but the court denied my motion with no explanation whatsoever, and without ruling on my objections. So, I filed an appeal. Read my Appellant's Opening Brief. And read the concurrently-filed Request for Judicial Notice. In Respondents' Opposition to my Motion to Amend Judgment, Colquhoun declares (in an untimely filed & served declaration that was also undated and not signed under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California) that "Datastream is not an e-commerce company like DSG Direct and TropicInks" but just an "Internet services company." (Whatever that means.) What's interesting is, in 2008 the Michigan Attorney General sued Datastream not DSG Direct or Your-Info and in the Consent Judgment, Datastream admitted that it sent/caused spams to be sent, and it had the ability to control the spams... which discredits and undermines their claim to my trial court. Also, Datastream's Articles of Incorporation state that it was created for "Internet Marketing" which is broader than just providing domain name management services. Here's Respondents' Opening Brief. Note the utter failure to address the Michigan case, the fact that the supposed key employee was never named as an officer, the irrelevant discussion of Florida law, glossing over successor liability (a separate theory from alter ego liability), and the several-page-long digression into the "stages of grief" a transparent sympathy ploy that has no legal merit. Also, referencing Eric Reinertsen as an officer (not that he was ever named on corporate filings either) isn't exactly helpful he's been identified by several sources as one of the top spammers in the world. Also blatantly false claims that DSG Direct and Your-Info's last corporate filings were in 2005. Nope, 2007. Here's my Appellant's Reply Brief and Second Request for Judicial Notice... addressing the above-referenced (and more!) problems with Respondents' Opening Brief. On June 14, the Court of Appeal partially reversed the Superior Court in my favor... TropicInks LLC is added to the judgment as successor, but no liability as to Datastream Group as alter-ego or Colquhoun personally as alter-ego or corporate officer. Read the (unpublished) Order. Trancos Inc. dba CoregMedia.com and USAProductsOnline.com Trancos claims to be an advertising network... but they're also a direct spammer too. Eight spams in 2007, from eight nonsensical different domain names, all of which were privately registered. False statements in the body of the spam too, like that I signed up from a particular IP address in Indiana. I was in Los Angeles on the supposed date of opt-in, and I have a declaration from the California Attorney General to prove it. The body of the spams only identify the sender as USAProductsOnline.com, which of course is privately registered too, and an address that turns out to be a branch of The UPS Store in Los Angeles. I subpoenaed The UPS Store, and learned that the box was rented to a Lewis J. Wright Jr., claiming an address that, after further research, I identified as Trancos' Pacific Palisades location. Oh yeah, Trancos also willfully failed to register USAProductsOnline.com as a fictitious business name, as required by Bus. & Prof. Code ง 17910. How do I know it was knowingly? Because "Trancos dba Adfish" sued one of its own advertisers, and the complaint says that Trancos has complied with all applicable laws re: fictitious business names, and it actually registered Adfish as an FBN a month before it started spamming me using the USAProductsOnline.com pseudonym. After fairly extensive conversations, Trancos decided it didn't do anything wrong. I think otherwise. Click here to read the complaint. Current defendants (who haven't been dismissed) include: Strategic Financial Publishing Inc. dba SurveyAdventure.com of Forteville, IN Trancos' original Answer purportedly had 18 affirmative defenses, most of which are just cookie-cutter copy & paste with no actual facts, and some of which aren't even affirmative defenses at all (e.g., their claim for attorneys' fees against me). We demurred to the Answer, and the court killed almost all of their defenses. The two remaining defenses in Trancos' Verified First Amended Answer are federal preemption and due care, But the federal preemption defense only applies to my Bus. & Prof. Code ง 17529.5 cause of action, not the Consumers Legal Remedies Act cause of action, because the CLRA isn't specific to email. The "due care" defense means they claim that they have practices & procedures to prevent advertising in unlawful spam. However, the Answer merely parroted the provision of the statute authorizing a reduction (not elimination) of damages, and it has no facts in support of such a defense, and even if it did have any facts, the "facts" would have no substantive weight because Trancos' attorney verified the Answer. In deposition, the CEO failed to produce any documents or even testify that Trancos had any practices & procedures. A couple days before the scheduled trial date, the CEO changed his deposition transcript to include a new "fact" in support of such a defense. I filed seven motions in limine. Defendants filed one (and did it late), to stop me from using the words "spam" and "unsolicited." Ummm, that's the heart of the case. Defendants have the right to defend against my allegations of course, but that's no reason I shouldn't be able to use the words. Click here to read the District Court for N.D. Cal., starting at page 9, reject an identical spammer request, analogizing that if someone's on trial for murder, guess what, it's not unfairly prejudicial for the prosecution to use the word "murder." Due to scarce courtrooms in San Mateo County, the trial was postponed until October 13. On August 10, the court denied Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, in which Defendants display a profound lack of understanding of the history of the California and federal anti-spam laws, when and how federal laws preempt state laws, the difference between falsity and fraud, standing requirements for a CLRA cause of action, and the nature of severability. Defendants also conveniently ignore the fact that for purposes of a MJOP, the allegations of the complaint must be taken as true. Click here to read my Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Here's their Reply. It's not in the briefs, but at oral argument, Defendants vehemently argued that the new Ninth Circuit ruling in Gordon v. Virtumundo states that California law is preempted in this Action. It doesn't say that, and the court still rejected Defendants' preemption defense, along with their defense that I don't have CLRA standing just because I didn't purchase anything advertised in the spams. Here's the Order Denying the MJOP. On August 10, the court also denied Defendants' Motion to Stay/Continue the trial until after the Cal. Supreme Court rules on the question of multiple sending domain names (certified by the Ninth Circuit in Kleffman v. Vonage), because whichever way the Supremes rule will not be dispositive of my case because I have other theories of liability. Moreover, the Motion to Stay is untimely because if Defendants thought waiting for the Supremes was so important, they should have filed the Motion to Stay before the initial trial date. Since Defendants appeared in June expecting to go to trial, they can hardly argue hardship by keeping an October trial date. Click here to read my Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Stay/Continue. Here's their Reply. Here's the Order Denying the Motion to Stay/Continue. On September 25, the court denied my Motion for Summary Judgment basically on procedural grounds, not substantive. (The preceding link is a zip file containing PDFs of the Notice of Motion, Memorandum of Points and Authorities, Separate Statement, Declarations, and Proposed Order... everything but the non-California authorities.) We incorrectly relied upon the Verified Complaint to support the MSJ, instead of copying & pasting the same content into a declaration, and not all documents were properly authenticated. Here's defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, in which they recycle the same arguments re: preemption, CLRA standing, and severability of the damages provision that the court already denied in their Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; ridiculously accuse me of threatening criminal charges; improperly introduce evidence of settlement discussions; incorrectly describe the remedy of B&P 17529.5 as "penalties"; and ignore deposition testimony from their CEO. Here's my Reply. Unfortunately, the Court denied my MSJ, for procedural/technical reasons. The case went to trial on October 13, 2009. On March 10, 2010, the Court issued a Final Judgment and Statement of Decision in my favor. To the best of my knowledge, this is the first time that a case has actually gone to trial under Bus. & Prof. Code ง 17529.5 (other than small claims court). Read the press release here. Defendants filed an appeal on the spam cause of action, and I filed an appeal on the CLRA cause of action. Stay tuned.
Amanda Greiner
TLM Enterprises Group
USGuides.net
Glen Hannifin and Usavedepot
Prospect Data Corp. and Permission Communications
Inc. (FL)
Toplander Corp. and YesMail (IL)
Unknown Spammer dba "Jambo
Jack"
Eric Lee of Mountain View, CA, who sent a phishing spam pretending to be American Airlines Lighthouse Christian Channel Inc. dba couponfor.org of Laguna Niguel, CA, and since its corporate status has been suspended, its President Caesar Elmi too LimosBusesJets.com LLC and Leonard Okoth of Mays Landing, NJ Liquid Marketing Inc. and Lead Jungle Inc. of Boca Raton, FL Lockerz LLC dba lockerz.com, a Delaware limited liability company Chris Luckie dba Itechfeed.com of Ravenna, OH Macronet International LLC of Buffalo, WY. Ironically, the spams I received advertised Macronet's software to send email to opt-in addresses. Magic Marketing Group LLC of Carson City, NV Mari Media Inc. and Kirk Leddon of Hialeah, FL Tony Mathews dba ISG Handicappers and Insiders Sports Group of Las Vegas, NV Memolink, Inc. of Lakewood, CO and David Asseoff (note, Asseoff is also behind Trifecta Inc., who I already sued) MikeFilsaime.com Inc. dba MyViralAds.com of Ronkonkoma, NY NameCheap Inc. dba funtimeadlt.com of Westchester, CA OperationalSystemsPages.com, Online-OperationalSystems.com, OperationalSystems-Online.com, OperationalSystemsHome.com, etc. of New York, NY Neohire.com of Santa Monica, CA Christopher Post of Setauket, NY, who sent spams from Gmail, linking to domain names watchsunsets.info and intriguedlove.com, both of which were registered to a fake name/address, but the ad network through which he sent the spams gave him up. Rapid Funds (a division of Modesco LLC) dba RapidFunds.com and Jim Pacelli of Cumming, GA Rapid Response Marketing dba x7.com
of Las Vegas, NV and its advertisers: RebateProcessorJobs.com and Cindy Dalton of Colton, CA which is a complete scam anyway, according to the L.A. County Better Business Bureau RelationServe Media Inc. dba "Telespace"
of Fort Lauderdale, FL and its principals: Remedy Media LLC
dba MediaGroup of Irvine, CA and The Data Market Place Corp.
and Peter Roccisano (doing business as
Professional Internet Marketing Solutions
of Weston, FL. Principals include: Rockstar Marketing Inc. dba TodaysPicks.net of Orlando, FL S-Infotech Inc.
dba RealOffers
and Richard Simnett of Boca
Raton, FL. Principals include: Rick Saling dba AdventSearch.com of Cincinnati, OH SLJ Group Inc. dba Universal Star Council of Lake Forest, IL Small Cap Investor of Delray Beach, FL Spire Vision LLC, Spire Vision
Holdings Inc., and/or XL Education Corp. of
New York, NY dba CommissionWizard.com, claiming to do business as non-existent entity "SilverInteractive
LLC" in Milford, CT and non-existent entity "Connection Centrals LLC" in
Flint, MI, and Prime Advertisers LLC in Reno, NV,
who sent 118 spams to one of my clients. Principals include: Stress-Free Technologies LLC dba LowStressIncome.com of Queen City, AZ "Suvrath LLC" dba 50states-auto-warranty.info and paydayloancare.info of Santa Clarita, California no such company (and a separate violation of B&P Code ง 17910.5(b) to claim you're an LLC when you're not), so liability on Deebo Manning and Vishal Shah personally Daniel Todd dba LawFirmSites.com of American Fork, UT VentureCorp Inc. dba Paid-Surveys-At-Home.com of Glendale, CA Bill Warren of Lake Balboa, CA dba AListCoverage.com and CarWarrantyNow.com, and AKMG, an ad network in El Segundo, CA Wayne Jackson Enterprises LLC dba OcalaSuccess.net of Ocala, FL Woodcrest College of Woodcrest, CA and Monterey Polytechnic Institute of Monterey, CA, the registrant of the domain name WoodcrestCollege.org. Woodcrest College sent spams to three of my email addresses, indicating that they're spamming to a suppression list. But, "Woodcrest College" is a total scam to begin with. The entire "degree based on life experience" a joke the "exam" is sub-SAT verbal questions. More seriously, the address claimed on the website 17457 Van Buren Blvd. in Woodcrest, CA literally doesn't exist. I know because I personally did a drive-by on July 8, 2010. Spammer
Who Shall Not Be Named. Principals include:
I am represented by Timothy Walton, a California attorney (in Aptos) with extensive experience in the spam and technology areas, who shares my passion for fighting spam. www.timothywalton.com |
![]()
ฉ 2002-present, Daniel Balsam