Comments on: The Impulse Media Group Lawsuit Decision Explained

By: Rob

Rob — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 00:57:57 +0000

Anne, you are correct about it being the latter. Although, what isn’t clear in the press reportings I’ve seen is that the gov’t overreached and tried to convince the court that CAN-SPAM is a strict-liability statute. Both Judge Lasnik in IMG, and Judge Bury in the Cyberheat case summarily rejected that contention. Note to “gunner” - the gov’t DID their homework. It’s just that IMG could not be held liable as a matter of law.

By: "gunner"

"gunner" — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 00:37:42 +0000

standard disclaimer: “i am not a lawyer, and don’t even play one on television”, but as you say, the principle of “innocent until proven guilty before a court of law” still applies, even for low life pond scum like spammers. i’ve served on a jury, and if the prosecution/government cannot prove its case the verdict must be “innocent” no matter how little we might like it. hopefully next time the government’s lawyers will do their homework and get an honest conviction on the evidence.
“gunner”

By: Phil

Phil — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 21:41:04 +0000

The FTC blew their case? (What, another pun?) Is it really blowing the case if you don’t have a case to begin with? I thought you believed they lost unjustly until the end where you seem to agree that they had no case begin with. Thanks to Anne, of course. :-)

By: Dave

Dave — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 04:27:48 +0000

Hey, very interesting post. Just wanted to help out and let you know that there is a small typo here: “the FTC coudnâ€™t prove their case”. Are you sure you wrote the CAN-SPAM act? aha jk.

By: Tricia

Tricia — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 02:05:02 +0000

I felt the exact same way as you about the fact that the jury would have WANTED to find Impulse Media responsible because of the nature of their business. I like your analysis. I’m hopeful that the case was so fact specific that it doesn’t set a strong precedent.