Missed this one: TheGlobe.com loses CAN-SPAM case...

... brought by MySpace.com: MySpace, Inc. v. The Globe.com, Inc..

Significantly, the court finds that:

1. MySpace is an "internet service provider" within the meaning of CAN-SPAM, and therefore has a private cause of action;


2. Messages sent through MySpace messaging system are "electronic mail"; and


3. Setting up e-mails under "false pretenses" is sufficient under "false and misleading header information" requirement.

Hat tip: Eric Goldman.

CAN-SPAM has few private remedies...

... 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.

CAN-SPAM and vicarious liability

An advertiser can be vicariously liable for another party's CAN-SPAM violations