Spam Law
Kronenberger Rosenfeld Secures Massive Attorneys’ Fees Order in Spam Lawsuit
| Friday, May 21, 2010On May 19, 2010 the Honorable Joseph C. Spero granted defendant Azoogleads.com, Inc.’s motion for attorneys’ fees against ASIS Internet services in the amount of $806,978.84. Renowned spam law firm, Kronenberger Rosenfeld, represented Azoogleads.com in this proceeding. In 2005, ASIS had initiated a lawsuit against 20 defendants, alleging that all of the defendants, including Azoogleads.com, had procured the sending of several thousand unlawful commercial emails in violation of CAN-SPAM, 15 U.S.C. §7701 et seq. and California Business & Professions Code section 17529.5. The district court granted summary judgment to Azoogleads.com, finding that the plaintiff had not suffered the necessary adverse effects to maintain a CAN-SPAM action and that the plaintiff had offered no evidence that Azoogleads.com had known about let alone procured the emails at issue in the lawsuit. Azoogleads.com subsequently moved the Court for an award of fees. The court granted Azoogleads.com’s motion, finding:
Here, the Court concludes that while ASIS may not have acted out of bad faith in initiating litigation against Azoogle, it at least acted unreasonably. Even assuming ASIS might have reasonably believed when it initially named Azoogle as a defendant that it would be able to establish standing – a question that turned on an as-yet unresolved issue of law – there was never any evidence that Azoogle sent or procured the emails on which ASIS based its claims. Rather, it is apparent that ASIS sued Azoogle based on little more than speculation that there might be a connection between those emails and Azoogle. ASIS then continued to litigate even as its discovery efforts turned up no evidence in support of its claims against Azoogle. Having initiated over 20 similar actions, and sued over 20 defendants in this action alone, an award of attorneys’ fees here is necessary to deter ASIS and other plaintiffs hoping to profit under the CAN-SPAM Act from casting such a wide net. The Court also concludes that an award of fees advances the interests of compensation to the extent that Defendant Azoogle was forced to defend itself against ASIS’s groundless claims, resulting in years of litigation and over a million dollars in attorneys’ fees.
ASIS Internet Services v. Optin Global, et al., Case No. 05-5124 (N.D. Cal.) [D.E. 483]
Click here to view the Court's order.
MOST RECENT
-
How to Keep Up With New Privacy Laws
Tuesday, June 21, 2022 -
Secure Passwords Are the Key to Your Online Security
Tuesday, May 31, 2022 -
4 Ways to Protect Your Crypto
Tuesday, May 31, 2022 -
FTC Reviews Rule on Earnings Claims
Tuesday, March 01, 2022 -
Firm Files Lawsuit Against Uphold HQ Inc Over Faulty Two-Factor Authentication
Monday, February 28, 2022
RELATED PRACTICE AREAS
Related articles
Spam Law
Ninth Circuit Affirms Kronenberger Rosenfeld’s Victory in Spam
On July 9, 2010 the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a spam lawsuit, which had been filed against Azoogle.com Inc. and several other defendants...
Spam Law
How Email Marketers Can Reduce the Risk of
Due to restrictive interpretations of the 2013 CAN-SPAM Act over the last decade, many spam plaintiffs find it more convenient to bring lawsuits instead under...
Spam Law
Ninth Circuit Affirms Appointment of Receiver to Collect
On February 26, 2010 the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district’s decision appointing a post-judgment receiver to collect and sell the domain names of a judgment...
Spam Law
Canada Gets a Tough New Anti-Spam Law
Canada’s new anti-spam law (the “CASL”) will go into effect on July 1, 2014. As the CASL imposes more exacting requirements on the use of...