... or at least that's what Western District of Washington seems to imply: Gordon v. Virtumundo, Inc..
The court held that even if a private entity can qualify as an "internet access service" (something the court calls "ambiguous), that entity needs to provide some evidence as to actual harm to "bandwidth, hardware, Internet connectivity, network integrity, overhead costs, fees, staffing, or equipment costs" or other "financial hardships" beyond mere inconvenience.
Hat tip spam notes.
The court held that even if a private entity can qualify as an "internet access service" (something the court calls "ambiguous), that entity needs to provide some evidence as to actual harm to "bandwidth, hardware, Internet connectivity, network integrity, overhead costs, fees, staffing, or equipment costs" or other "financial hardships" beyond mere inconvenience.
Hat tip spam notes.
No comments:
Post a Comment