A recent report from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) that they were successful in getting a preliminary victory by shutting down a huge international spammer is great news since we receive so much spam. As the consumer watch dog for US citizens the FTC has been pursuing claims against spammers under the CAN SPAM Act of 2003, but the ability to shut down a foreign operated spammers is more complicated than just getting a judge to sign an order in Chicago. The CIO at SpamHaus claims that the defendants in this lawsuit delivered up to a third of all spam.
What was going on?
These defendants used spam to market male-enhancing pills, prescription drugs, and weight-loss pills, notwithstanding that apparently the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) tests indicated serious problems for individuals who used these products. Also the defendants misrepresented that the prescription drugs were licensed by US pharmacies when in fact the drugs were shipped from India without licenses. Also the FTC investigators found that there was no security for credit card purchasers so in addition to everything else there is a concern about identity theft.
Who has jurisdiction?
In order for courts to take lawsuits there has to be proper jurisdiction, and in this instance the FTC brought its case simultaneous with charges by officials in New Zealand. But the scope of these spammers was larger than New Zealand and the US, and apparently included spammers in China, India, Russia, Canada, and the US. So it’s easy to see how the Federal Court in Chicago could seize assets in the US, but not so easy to see how effective that might be in the other countries other than New Zealand. How courts reach across international boundaries is not entirely clear including whether the French Courts really has jurisdiction over the US Yahoo! website, but since the 2000 French injunction is still in place to preclude the sale Nazi materials.
This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney.
This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary.
The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites.
In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.