I am representing a group of plaintiffs suing Tagged.com for (allegedly) unlawful spamming, unauthorized use of name without permission, accessing email accounts without permission, etc. Last year, after I personally beat Tagged in small claims court, Tagged considered hiring me to sue spammers hitting its own users. That employment never happened, and Tagged never gave me any confidential information, but that didn't stop its attorneys from trying to disqualify me from the current case. The judge saw through their shenanigans and denied the motion.
Anti-Spam Crusader Beats Spammers in Court (SFWeekly.com, Mar. 17, 2010)
S.F. Lawyer Awarded $7K From Email Spammer (SFGate.com, Mar. 16, 2010)
In the first case to go to trial in California brought by a spam recipient (other than small claims court), the Court awarded me $1,000 for each false & deceptive spam.
Proposed Anti-Spam Law Would Make Lawsuits Easier (MediaPost, April 22, 2008)
Well, our goal isn't really to make lawsuits easier, it's to crack down on false & deceptive spam. This article provides a little more detail on how we intend to accomplish it. I like the quote from the "State Privacy and Security Coalition," which reinforces that some people's priority is avoiding legal exposure, as opposed to actually stopping false & deceptive spam. Note also that AOL publicly stated that they're on board to help fight spam, which is interesting, since a week ago, in the Judiciary hearing, the AOL lobbyist opposed even a simple statement of intent. We'll see what happens next.
On the New Anti-Spam Law (KCBS Radio, April 18, 2008)
Click here to download an MP3 file (1.3MB), or here to listen to streaming audio from EveryZing.com.
Bill Toughening Anti-Spam Law in Works (SFGate.com, April 18, 2008)
Yes, in all my spare time, I co-wrote a stronger anti-spam law for California that attempts to close up some loopholes and clarify some ambiguities in the current law, to the extent that Congress permitted the states to regulate false and deceptive spam. That means that the new proposed law only targets falsity & deception... companies that do not use false & deceptive spam have nothing to worry about. The proposed bill is intended to protect consumers, business who receive email, and businesses who send truthful email. The proposed bill, AB 2950, is sponsored by Assemblymember Jared Huffman, and currently opposed by the American Electronics Association, for reasons that seem to be more focused on avoiding litigation than on actually addressing the real problem of false and deceptive spam.
"Block this guy - he is the next Dan Balsam :)"
Allegedly in an email sent by an ad network to its affiliates, warning them not to send spam to someone who apparently is as litigious as I am. I'm quite happy and flattered that my name has become shorthand for "Here's someone who will sue you if you send unlawful spam." Posted on a blog on February 17, 2007. (Click here for a pdf in case the site goes down at some point.) It's interesting, as the poster points out, that the network condescendingly refers to people who have the audacity to stand up for their legal rights as "whiners" and "complainers."
How to Win the War Against Spam / Top Spammer / Can You Legally Fight Spam? (PC Quest, August 2005)
Spam King Goes Bankrupt (OReilly.com, March 9, 2005)
Microsoft: Spammer in Tucson Owes $7.4 Million (
Anti-Spammers on Attack (InternetNews.com,
Fighting Spam (ABC-7
News-Los Angeles, July 29, 2003)- Dan Balsam fights
back in court… and wins.
- Earthlink reports a 5x
increase in spam in the last 18 months, and manages to filter out 60-70%
before it gets to subscribers’ emailboxes.
- Tips to avoid spam: Always opt-out of all promotions when registering at a website, use “disposable” email addresses, and never reply to spam – even to unsubscribe.
Click
to view MPEG (50MB)
(Be patient; these are big files.)
Spam’s Big Bang
(Time
Magazine,
