overview
industry
offers
attention
fraud
statistics
blacklists
EU cases
US cases
related
Guides:
Governance
Information
Economy
Security
& Crime
Identity
Crimes
related
Profiles:
Spam
regulation in Australia
Messaging
Do Not Call
Registries
Forgery &
Forensics
Surveillance
|
EU
cases
This page considers selected EU prosecutions of spamming.
It covers -
Australian
prosecutions and warnings (including the Federal Court's
landmark $5.5 million penalty on a Perth spammer) are
discussed in more detail here,
as part of the note on the Australian and New Zealand
spam regimes.
introduction
Pessimism about the prospects for controlling spam at
a global and international level is sometimes based on
perceptions that even the most egregious spammers cannot
be identified, prosecuted and meaningfully punished.
It is thus interesting to see the slow emergence of case
law regarding spam, with successful prosecutions likely
to have some impact in encouraging awareness within particular
jurisdictions and more broadly underpinning international
development.
the UK
In the UK during December 2005 a county court judge in
Colchester ruled against a Scottish-based business in
what is claimed as the first action of its kind under
the EU Directive on Privacy & Electronic Communications.
Channel Islands-based businessman Nigel Roberts sued Media
Logistics UK, a Stirlingshire "electronic direct
marketing" company, after receiving spam email.
He commented that
The
new law gives anyone who is spammed the right to seek
damages against the originators of the unwanted e-mail,
fax or text message. I wrote to the company asking for
an apology and claiming damages under Regulation 30
of the privacy regulations. I also asked under the [UK]
Data Protection Act for details of the data that the
company had obtained and stored about me - and I particularly
wanted to know who had supplied them with my e-mail
address. When they declined to give the information
or make any offer, I issued a claim against them in
England, where they are incorporated, under the anti-spam
laws.
The
company acknowledged the claim but did not defend it,
agreeing to an out-of-court settlement of damages of £270
and the £30 claim fee after the judge ruled in his
favour.
In May 2006 London's High Court ruled that spammers could
be prosecuted under the 1990 Computer Misuse Act,
overturning a district judge's ruling that 18 year old
David Lennon had no case to answer after being accused
of using a computer program to send five million emails
to insurer Domestic & General after that firm had
fired him.
In the initial cases the judge indicated that as the purpose
of a company's server was to receive emails, it had consented
to emails being sent by Lennon. The High Court disagreed,
noting that although a computer user might consent to
being sent some unsolicited email, that consent did not
extend to "receiving a barrage of such messages".
In August 2006 he pleaded guilty at Wimbledon Youth Court
to causing an authorised modification to a computer, under
the Computer Misuse Act, and was sentenced to a two-month
curfew. jBut the High Court overturned the decision.
In 2007 electronic marketing specialistGordon Dick was
awarded damages of £750 and legal costs of £616
by the Edinburgh sheriff (ie small claims) court after
suing UK business Transcom over a single spam message.
He was one of 72,000 people who received the spam, which
he argued breached the Data Protection Act (unlawful obtaining
of an email address through harvesting from an email group)
and the Privacy & Electronic Communication Regulations.
Dick said "When I contacted them they told me to
sue them, so I did", gaining the maximum amount allowed.
elsewhere in the EU
In 2004 Danish telco equipment company Aircom was fined
€56,000 in a case brought by Denmark's National Consumer
Agency, somewhat more energetic than its UK counterpart.
The court found that Aircom had breached regulations under
the 2002 EU Directive by sending more than 15,000 spam
emails.
next page
(US cases)
|
|
Ketupa