Venkat Balasubramani over at Spam Notes posted a nice summary of the recent 4th Circuit Court decision in the Mark Mumma anti-spam case.
The court also rejected the underlying CAN-SPAM claims. The decision is important for one simple reason: anti-spam lawyers (and plaintiffs) often advance the exact arguments advanced by the plaintiff in this case. Lawyers on the other side know these arguments lack merit, but do not have any court decisions to back them up. As a result, a vicious settlement cycle results. This case probably represents the start of the tide turning in the other direction.
I questioned the whole Mark Mumma bit from the get go, and Mark came back. Mark hired a crack attorney. It didn’t seem to help matters.
Of course, none of what I said really made much difference – in general, the court rejected the plaintiff’s argument for alternate reasons (and ones that are surprisingly simple to understand). Read Venkat’s entire post – summary of the litigation is available as a PDF download as well.