Any successful spam lawsuits?

So we've got all of these acts that seemingly protect us as consumers, including the regulation that states unsolicited spam is illegal punishable by up to R1 million or up to twelve months imprisonment. That being said, has anyone actually taken any spammers to task yet? Does anyone know of any cases that have played out?

It's been a couple of years so I'm sure there has to be a precedent by now...

tco21 said:

It's been a couple of years so I'm sure there has to be a precedent by now...

Click to expand...

Not as far as I'm aware of, thus far the situation being that laws does not equate enforcement.

We did however see the Ketler vs ISPA case which opened up the gates hopefully:
http://mybroadband.co.za/news/internet/104657-sa-spammer-pays-r65000-to-settle-case.html

As it stands now, despite the ECT ACT of 2002, the CPA of 2008 and the POPI Act of 2013, marketers from small to large still believe you are their targets for spam campaigns. (Ref: http://ispa.org.za/spam/south-african-law/)

I really think there is some secret college or like where the marketing teams of CellC, Vodacom, MTN, the insurance industry and like goes for subversive "CPA101" courses. CPA? Client Privacy Abuse of course.

Apologies if I'm wrong, but I have many complaints that has led me to believe so. Why, my one HelloPeter complaint on CellC expired already and I still get occasional spam from them.

Or in the case of Dial Direct, ignoring requests not to receive marketing, then have the agent contacting me and arguing the point upon me cornering him, "Oh, this is a new product again ..."

I remember walking into Vodacom HQ in Vodaworld after one spam too many with a cease and desist for their director that had to be signed ... and was.

At this stage enforcement lacks upstream. So at best you can only ridicule and shame those abusing your rights.

I have received 2 different spam SMSs just this morning. Truworths (never had an account with them), Mercedes-Benz Centurion (never driven a mercedes in my life). Both (and the majority of the rest I'll be receiving today) has the audacity to ask me to spend R1 on an SMS to opt out. It'll cost me R200 a month just to opt out of all the crap I get. If there is one bunch of stooges I absolutely despise its those morons sitting in their offices around the country right now making the decisions to use spam as a form of marketing and then the dogs selling address lists and s/w to them to make it possible. This might be a candidate to push at the JPSA to take an example case to court. (As I type I'm hearing my colleague in the office next door having an argument with a telemarketer - that lowest of low scum of the earth spam method)

Part of the problem is that the cost to enforce simply isn't worthwhile. Who's going to go to all of the trouble to lodge a complaint with the National Consumer Commission, for example, just to stop the occasional SMS? Ignoring spam takes less effort than enforcing a legislative breach, and most of us gravitate to the path of least resistance unless it is something that we are very passionate about.

How long will it take dim Marketing types to realise that most of us just end up despising the product they're spamming about?

It's bad enough with ordinary advertising - I tend to avoid advertised products whenever I can - but spam advertising goes that one step further to making the product a personal enemy.

The Kettler/ISPA case is hardly a spam conviction. It was in short all about ISPA having their hall-of-shame and Kettler challenging it and subsequently lost. There was no prosecution in terms of ECT act AFAIK but rather a dismissal at cost for Kettler - I have never read the judgement but I doubt that it would have touched ECT in this case, despite all IT news made it out as "spammer convicted", which was really not the case.

IMO as an individual you can refer to ECT when responding to a spammer and in most cases they stop (they do fail however to disclose origin of where they sourced the information and are thus violating ECT).

My gripe is, that if ISPA really wanted to combat spam, "all" it really takes is take their hall-of-shame spam list and then file charges against every one of the spammers. I don't know why it is not done, as it negatively affects ISPA's members (the ISP's bandwidth being used up and the ISP's customers being harassed with spam) and it is easy enough to do as each individual ISP has access to all the information with regards to MTA logs.

No-one (neither ISPA or ISPs) could ever answer why they have not pursued it. In my opinion, the ECT act is not solid enough to convict a spammer based on how the act was written.

So my suggestion: Pony up with a good spam mechanism (either via Google Apps or server-side spam filters), because it is unlikely that anyone is going to do something about it.

Following up on Magicdude's post :

RBL like Spamhaus offer a degree of protection.

What any good sysadmin do, is to put RBL first. I use the ZEN list, which is as good as any. This does not use a lot of server resources (RAM and CPU), and is an excellent first line of defense.

This decreases the level of spam filtering the server have to do.

Then you have your heuristic spam analyzers, analyzing all the remaining messages that's passing through. You can use heuristic spam analyzers without an RBL, but keep in mind the load on the server will be much higher as it will have to process more messages than with an RBL.

Finally, the end-user will have to apply a bit of common sense and think before opening any strange attachments or email messages.


By the by, if your MTA does not offer the use of RBL's (and optional, inline antivirus scanning), then strongly consider looking for an alternative MTA that can do it for you.

tco21 said:

So we've got all of these acts that seemingly protect us as consumers, including the regulation that states unsolicited spam is illegal punishable by up to R1 million or up to twelve months imprisonment. That being said, has anyone actually taken any spammers to task yet? Does anyone know of any cases that have played out?

It's been a couple of years so I'm sure there has to be a precedent by now...

Click to expand...

No, nothing at all.

I highly doubt that anyone ever opened any criminal charges against any company as yet in terms of the ECT act.

People like to complain, but are not willing to take the effort, time and expenses in sitting in court.

So, spam is here to stay, like it or not.

The_Librarian said:

Following up on Magicdude's post :

RBL like Spamhaus offer a degree of protection.

Click to expand...

Inhouse we submit spam received to RBLs and some times even submit whole ASN's if we find that certain ISPs (after raising the issue with them), still support open relay MTAs. But as others said, it would be difficult for an individual to open a criminal case against a spammer, as just getting a 205 will be a pain and CCU will not even want to investigate, hence my suggestion that as the ISP body, ISPA is the best place to make this happen, but they do not want to, as most of the spam originates from their customer's (ISPs) with open relays.

MagicDude4Eva said:

Inhouse we submit spam received to RBLs and some times even submit whole ASN's if we find that certain ISPs (after raising the issue with them), still support open relay MTAs. But as others said, it would be difficult for an individual to open a criminal case against a spammer, as just getting a 205 will be a pain and CCU will not even want to investigate, hence my suggestion that as the ISP body, ISPA is the best place to make this happen, but they do not want to, as most of the spam originates from their customer's (ISPs) with open relays.

Click to expand...

I always appreciate your posts but heaven only knows what you are saying here.

Anything to do with the MRA or the ex-NRB?

rwenzori said:

I always appreciate your posts but heaven only knows what you are saying here.

Anything to do with the MRA or the ex-NRB?

Click to expand...

Above meant: Coppers (CCU = Commercial Crimes Unit) will not give a flying f.... if you want to open criminal charges as an individual, so suck it up and delete your spam

Thanks!

This is going to sound like I'm linked to ISPA or coming up for them. I'm not, rather stating experience as a disconnected consumer

MagicDude4Eva said:

The Kettler/ISPA case is hardly a spam conviction. It was in short all about ISPA having their hall-of-shame and Kettler challenging it and subsequently lost. There was no prosecution in terms of ECT act AFAIK but rather a dismissal at cost for Kettler - I have never read the judgement but I doubt that it would have touched ECT in this case, despite all IT news made it out as "spammer convicted", which was really not the case.

Click to expand...

Correct. But for the first time the judiciary understood what South Africa is facing. Judge Spilg took much time, more than had been afforded other parties ever, to fully understand the issues. For this reason, upon realizing how the likes of Ketler Investment and other similar parties were affecting the consumer and economy, he marked his judgement "REPORTABLE: YES" and "OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES". Precedent had been set in high court and this case could be used by other courts, either a magistrate's court or high court, as precedent. This is of importance.

It well worthwhile reading the judgement.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/170350431/Ketler-Invest-v-Ispa-Jmnt-Revised

MagicDude4Eva said:

IMO as an individual you can refer to ECT when responding to a spammer and in most cases they stop (they do fail however to disclose origin of where they sourced the information and are thus violating ECT).

Click to expand...

Should you complain pushing it, the spammer resorts to list washing, the "in most cases they stop" you mention. Yet source disclosure is an issue as you also mention.

Hint: This is also why my email addresses are not DMASA "Do not contact" listed, apart from one I submitted in my naive days. Numerous spamming incidents occurred because my email address was listed there, "data processing errors" with the directors of the member companies not willing to investigate and dispose of this list as it contaminated, not wishing to discuss "the ethics of spamming" (sic). Complaints to the DMASA are read but never addressed.

As for "the identifying source"; you need to push for this. The "answers" are quite "interesting". The insurance industry is more than "interesting" where we have empires built upon the backs of spamming. It has repercussions internationally. Let's just say the Irish Data protector is not interested. Digging gets ugly very fast.

MagicDude4Eva said:

My gripe is, that if ISPA really wanted to combat spam, "all" it really takes is take their hall-of-shame spam list and then file charges against every one of the spammers. I don't know why it is not done, as it negatively affects ISPA's members (the ISP's bandwidth being used up and the ISP's customers being harassed with spam) and it is easy enough to do as each individual ISP has access to all the information with regards to MTA logs.

Click to expand...

What we are seeing is "businesses" locally, hosting locally, but using bullet proof overseas hosting and a stream of spam domains to spam from. They never mention the local domain unless heavily obfuscated with tracking links. Even new companies have a professional spamming operation. This makes you wonder who is assisting them?

Where spammers use ISPA members, the results vary from a one time warning to termination. Afrihost booted spammer Greg Secker's website http://www.learntotradeforex.co.za/ after the complainant requested ECT Act identifying info, pointing out how this is linked to ISPA Hall of Shame knowledgetoaction.co.za etc and the GS crew were not delivering the details. Bye bye spammers, Afrihost does not need you.

@Greg Secker & Crew: You are still legally obliged to supply the complainant with identifying details ...

So it does work, but small issues can hamper enforcement. As the ECT Act stands, the spam recipient has to press charges or complain. Should a third party intervene, they could end up in serious trouble and be held liable for the spammer's damages as per the same ECT Act, ISPA included.

Perhaps some of the legal minds should comment on this.

The POPI Act was enacted in November 2013 with a year's transitional period for all to get their house in order (why!!?? There was enough warning). This changes email marketing from opt-out (everybody is entitled to one free punch on the consumer) to opt-in. I know what I'm doing over December ...

House said:

No, nothing at all.

I highly doubt that anyone ever opened any criminal charges against any company as yet in terms of the ECT act.

People like to complain, but are not willing to take the effort, time and expenses in sitting in court.

So, spam is here to stay, like it or not.

Click to expand...

Cases have been opened. Invariably 'Constable Piesang' at the local station is very disinterested and/or understanding, sometimes actually obstructive and more interested in giving you the run-around. But when you finally get to pressing charges, you never hear back: the prosecutor ignoring it. Why, one such case against http://clubzone.co.za/ actually included
a) the spammer telling me f-off,
b) signing me up at party B's website,
c) coming back to me via email telling me I need to be careful as some people are vindictive and will sign you up to other lists if you complain.

Thanks to ethical marketeer "B", we tracked IP address and compared them to the f-off email and 2nd hidden threat email. Below is the fake subscription at "B" and one such header )of which I have two identical ones). In this case a well known attorney was involved, advertising regularly on the TV, as the spammer's legal counsel.

I've been receiving a lot of unsolicited SMS's lately, and I'm growing increasingly sick and tired of it. Problem is that I don't know where it originated.

I have no idea who sold my information off to other companies, and find that often these SMS's won't include the name of the company sending the message, the ambiguity is rather high, unless you directly contact them and investigate who they are.

How does one go about tracking down the source of this? It's not like I give out my number often, but I suspect it started when I purchased my car about a year and a 1/2 ago, since then, it's been constant.

Enigma_ said:

I have no idea who sold my information off to other companies, and find that often these SMS's won't include the name of the company sending the message, the ambiguity is rather high, unless you directly contact them and investigate who they are.

Click to expand...

Would also love to know where the following got my info. from ...

I haven't had anything for a long time, but today received a call 3 times before answering on the 3rd, from a "Private Number" ; phone was promptly put down by the toss in question.

Thought they'd wait a few days before starting with their marketing rubbish, but in the last hour, have received 3 calls from that PVT number - which I decided to get back at them on - by answering and not speaking - gave me pleasure screwing them around, in turn.

Then, in case they didn't get the message the first few times, they sent the following SMS from # 082-093-4897, worded exactly as I've typed it :

Please call Linda (AD)A FAMILY can get R40 000 1Lifefuneral cover for around R4 per day. Sms COVER to 45144. T&C's SMS R1 FSP 24769.

Click to expand...

Because ** "1 Life Funeral" are either so hard up or persistent, they've subsequently phoned a further 2 times (so far, 'til posting this), not from the PVT # , but from cell nos. :

084-643-7985 and 082-093-4897

When they can't get anywhere hiding behind PVT nos., they try bringing the 'troops' out into the open :twisted:

Hope at least someone representing the d!ck-head owners / management are reading this post - do you idiots seriously think anyone in 2015 with any sense is going to deal with a Co. cold-calling & hard-selling ??
Not me, you fools - by the way, I'm sure your caskets are reading & waiting - just in time for the Easter weekend.


*** = [https://www.1life.co.za/products/funeral-cover/ .. personally haven't and wouldn't go to that site, but simply wanted to check there is a match between these SMSs / calls, and a legitimate site].

tco21 said:

So we've got all of these acts that seemingly protect us as consumers, including the regulation that states unsolicited spam is illegal punishable by up to R1 million or up to twelve months imprisonment. That being said, has anyone actually taken any spammers to task yet? Does anyone know of any cases that have played out?

It's been a couple of years so I'm sure there has to be a precedent by now...

Click to expand...

I'm sure there was a mybb article about some SA spam kings going down. Not sure if it was email or SMS though...