"
|
Superior Court
Cases |
|
|
All of the entities referenced on this page "sent" me spam
(i.e., "unsolicited commercial email"), meaning I never gave them direct consent
as defined by California Bus. & Prof. Code ง 17529.1(o). 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. And 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. 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.
Sallie Mae Inc. and SLM Corporation I had a dispute with Sallie Mae click here to read the First Amended Complaint but the matter has been settled and dismissed. Trancos Inc. dba CoregMedia.com dba 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 purported to reverse his deposition transcript to include a "fact" in support of such a defense. I filed seven motions in limine. Trancos filed one (and did it late), to stop me from using the words "spam" and "unsolicited." Ummm, that's the heart of the case. Trancos hasthe 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 Northern District Court, 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." Update: Due to scarce courtrooms in San Mateo County, trial postponed until October 13. Motions for Summary Judgment to be heard first. Amanda Greiner Ms. Greiner created a fake business name ("Madd Roi LLC") and used multiple domain names all of which were registered to fake people, business, and addresses to send her spam. But I tracked her down and got her served. The Court already entered her default; next step is entry of judgment. Startup Consultants LLC et al Darren Cleveland is the registered agent and principal officer of Startup Consultants LLC (also dba TheAdDoctors.com) and RDC Consulting Inc. Gregoire Gasparini was his partner. My complaint alleged that they sent me spams from multiple domain names that they had registered in the name of a nonexistent entity, "IRL Technet Ltd.," at an address that turned out to be an Irish Pub. (My letter to that address was returned undeliverable.) The letter I sent to the P.O. Box that appears in the body of the spams was returned unclaimed. Cleveland et al did a fairly good job of hiding themselves, but I sent the sourcecode/clickthrus to several of the advertisers featured in the spams, and the advertisers identified Cleveland/Startup Consultants as the source. Click here to read the complaint. I settled with and dismissed Cleveland, Gasparini, Startup Consultants LLC, and RDC Consulting Inc... no admission of liability by any of them. Cleveland claims that "IRL Technet Ltd.," owned by "Ivan Lightbourne," is a separate entity supposedly located in the Bahamas. I have no information at this time to confirm or deny that, but it doesn't change the fact that three advertisers independently identified Cleveland/Startup Consultants... not IRL Technet. No settlement with TravelFleaMarket.com Inc. (owned by Robert Phillips of Oceanside, NY) another named defendant who, with these spams, violated a previous consent decree not to send me unlawful spam. CoverClicks and Friends CoverClicks LLC, AffiliateNetwork.com LLC, MyTruePromotions LLC, and WinHundred LLC. All intertwined companies, advertising through third-party spammers/affiliates. Some of the subject lines were deceptive, some of the sender names were deceptive, some of the sender email addresses were falsified, some of the spammers sent spam from multiple domain names, some spams had forged mailserver information, some sending domain names were falsely registered, and some falsified the recipient name. Defendants ignored my letter, and they had every opportunity to avoid this litigation, but did nothing, to the point where I had to file suit. In response to my Complaint, defendants filed a Demurrer on two grounds: 1) statute of limitations for the Consumers Legal Remedies Act cause of action, and 2) two of the six business entities I named were created after the spams. Defendants were correct on the second ground, so I filed a First Amended Complaint, but as to the first ground, defendants (or at any rate their attorneys, Idell & Seitel of San Francisco and Klein Zelman Rothermel of New York) misread the complaint, which expressly said that even though nine of the 10 spams at issue violated the CLRA, only five of them were actionable because of the statute of limitations. Because the Defendants were confused about "violations of the CLRA" versus "actionable violations of the CLRA," Defendants filed a Demurrer to the FAC. In the Demurrer, defendants admitted that Joshua Blumenfeld controls all of the companies, and the companies act as a single economic unit. The attorneys also attached all kinds of supporting evidence, except that's inappropriate because a demurrer must only address the pleading on its face... If you want to attach supporting documents, you need to file an answer, not a demurrer. The attorneys also asked the Court to order sanctions against me for again claiming CLRA violations beyond the 3-year statute of limitations... even though I expressly did not make that request. And here it gets funny. The attorneys based their request for sanctions on CCP งง 128.5 and 128.6, except that the former only applies to lawsuits filed before 1995 and the latter never became effective. Defendants could have requested sanctions pursuant to CCP ง 128.7, but that requires 21 days safe-harbor notice and a separate motion; you can't just tuck a request for sanctions into the middle of a demurrer, with no notice! Naturally, I filed an Opposition to the Demurrer, and I gave defendants proper notice of my Motion for Sanctions against them based on their frivolous pleadings. They withdrew their entirely frivolous Demurrer and filed a slightly-less-frivolous Amended Demurrer to the FAC. In the Amended Demurrer to the FAC, Defendants still failed to recognize that something could be unlawful and yet be time-barred. "Similarly, in paragraph 139, it is simply impossible that '[n]ine of the 10 spam messages violate the CLRA." No, it's actually quite possible. Deceptive advertising, more than 3 years before filing suit, does violate the CLRA... it's just not actionable any more. I prepared an Opposition to the Amended Demurrer, but then defendants and I agreed that it would be easier to just file a Second Amended Complaint. The SAC yet again clarifies the CLRA quantity issue, drops "civil conspiracy" as a separate cause of action, and alleged alter-ego liability and seeks to pierce the corporate veil by holding Joshua Blumenfeld personally liable as a defendant. Defendants filed a somewhat better Answer to the SAC. In the meantime, Blumenfeld's California attorneys agreed to accept service for him for the SAC in return for me granting them an extension on discovery, and then they turned around and filed a Motion to Quash and Dismiss. Pretty sleazy. So, I filed an Opposition to argue that the Court has jurisdiction over Blumenfeld personally, pointing out that Blumenfeld admitted to being the sole member/manager, CEO, driving force, and person most knowledgeable of all the companies... and the corporate shield does not relieve someone from liability for their personal tortious actions. I also pointed out that Blumenfeld, or those acting under his direction, signed contracts with California spammers and have physically come to California to engage in business activities. The Court ruled against me on personal jurisdiction over Blumenfeld, and defendants then filed a memorandum of costs and motion for attorneys' fees against me for over $16,000 (because Blumenfeld was supposedly the prevailing defendant on my CLRA cause of action). I again properly served notice that I would file a Motion for Sanctions against Blumenfeld and his attorneys for improper filings. (Note: Document at preceding link is slightly cleaned up and does not include discovery responses.) My grounds were that Blumenfeld wasn't the prevailing defendant under the CLRA because the court held no jurisdiction at all without ever reaching the merits of the CLRA cause of action, and even if Blumenfeld were the prevailing defendant the standard is may (not shall) award reasonable attorneys' fees, and only upon a showing of my bad faith. But the court did not and could not have found my bad faith, because it's a subjective standard, not objective, and the court never conducted a factual inquiry into my state of mind, and here's all the reasons why I did act in good faith. I also objected to Blumenfeld improperly claiming $26 for postage (non-recoverable) as a recoverable cost of service. Defendants withdrew their improper documents and filed an amended Memorandum of Costs to only include the filing fees to which they are entitled. Unknown Spammer dba "Jambo Jack" This spammer sent dozens of spams from dozens of domain names, all of which were falsely registered. NameCheap.com is the reseller for the registrar Enom.com. NameCheap finally, after threats of legal action, removed the Whoisguard privacy protection, but that's not quite the same thing as identifying its licensee (the actual spammer), which it is required to do pursuant to the ICANN-Registrar Accreditation Agreement, paragraph 3.7.7.3, otherwise it accepts all liability. So, it looks like NameCheap will be sued, along with "Jambo Jack" as a Doe defendant, and all of the advertisers: NameCheap.com, hiding its real address via a box at The UPS Store in Westchester, CA, and its rude owner Richard Kirkendall AER Investments Corporation dba SurveyRewardsCenter.com of Boca Raton, FL and its owner, Warren Rustin ConsumerBargainGiveaways LLC dba OpinionResearchPanel.com of Evanston, Illinois and its principal Jeff Zweben Find Your Customers Inc. dba Secure-Cash.net of Austin, TX and Carlsbad, CA Focus Interactive Inc. dba Iwon.com of White Plans, NY Global Travel International Inc. dba GlobalTravel.com of Maitland, FL Insweb Corp. and Insweb Insurance Services Inc. dba Insweb.com of Gold River, CA TrueBeginnings LLC dba True.com of Irving, TX WomensCashAlliance.com of Burlington, VT DSG Direct et al. DSG Direct Inc. of Bonita Springs, FL appears to have been created from the old Evo Clix Inc. and Your-Info Inc., both also in Florida big shock there. I unsubscribed five times from Evo Clix, back when I naively thought that might actually work to stop the spam. (To be precise, I unsubscribed via email, weblink, and certified letters to Evo Clix and its registered agent.) DSG's attorney dumped them, and I guess they didn't think it was necessary to find another one. Oops, bad call. Judgment entered for Plaintiff. We've already seized some monies towards the judgment. AdultActionCam.com and Tucows I received over 1,100 spams between October 2005 and May 2006 from Adult Action Cam and/or its affiliates. Various elements of false headers: Fake sender names, fake sender email addresses, deceptive subject lines, and fake date/time stamps. Also, multiple violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, including false representations that membership in Adult Action Cam is free, false representations as to the size of Adult Action Cam's membership, false representations as to how many people were online at any particular moment, false representations as to how many new members joined on any particular day, deceptive random text in the body of the emails, false representations as to Adult Action Cam's connection with me and with the supposed senders of the spam, false representations of the geographic origins of the spam, etc. Click here to read the first amended complaint as filed. [Note that although the first amended complaint still refers to Carolynn Tilga as a defendant, the judge granted her motion for dismissal after she represented to the court that she sold two of her companies to a Maltese company, not that she provided much detail on that alleged sale, and the spams at issue were sent after the sale date. However, the case is still quite live against the other defendants.] $1.1 million default judgment entered. However, collecting is another matter. In a related story, my attorney sent a demand letter to Tucows which provides private registration for the domain names adultactioncam.com and adultactioncash.com through ContactPrivacy.com, which means that Tucows becomes the registrANT as well as the registrAR, and it licensed use of the domain name back to the spammer. Pursuant to the ICANN Registrar Accreditation Agreement, a registrant who refuses to promptly provide the identity of the licensee upon receipt of evidence of actionable harm shall accept all liability. Even after judgment was entered, and even after I provided evidence of more spams, Tucows -- specifically, Paul Karkas -- still refused to provide me with the identity of its licensee. So I filed a complaint against Tucows. TLM Enterprises Group This "resume spammer" is off the charts in terms of deceptive means of evading spam filters. At the time of filing, there were 65 spams... sent from 26 unique domain names, 37 unique email addresses, 20 unique IP addresses indicating origination in 8 different states, and 11 different ISPs. A few more spams since filing too. Various other types of falsity in the email bodies, and most don't include a physical mailing address as required by CAN-SPAM either. Defendants ignored several letters, so we're in court. Judgment entered for Plaintiff. USGuides.net Click here to read the complaint as filed. Settled this one. Unnamed Illinois Spammer I filed two lawsuits against this spammer, which shall not be named here. The spammer tried to hide its identity by registering its domain names with private WhoIs services - which is itself a violation of federal law, 18 USC ง 1037(a)(4), but I got 'em. Some of this spammer's advertisers, who are also responsible for the spam, include:
123td.com LLC dba "Pronto Mortgage Express"
of Westminster, CA More to Come...
Glen Hannifin and Usavedepot
Prospect Data Corp. and Permission Communications
Inc. (FL)
Toplander Corp. and YesMail (IL)
I am represented by Timothy Walton, a California attorney (in Palo Alto) with extensive experience in the spam and technology areas, who shares my passion for fighting spam. www.timothywalton.com |
![]()
ฉ 2002-present, Daniel Balsam