Court Tells Spammer That It's Not Illegal For An ISP To Filter Its Emails

from the in-no-uncertain-terms dept

If the name e360 sounds familiar to you, it may be because it was the company that sued Spamhaus for including it in its spam filter list. e360 insists it’s not a spammer and anyone filtering its messages is somehow infringing on its rights. Of course, there seems to be ample evidence that e360 has been spamming, and the company has been sued directly as well. e360’s latest lawsuit was against Comcast for filtering its emails, but as Slashdot lets us know, a judge has tossed that suit out of court while also declaring in no uncertain terms that e360 is a spammer.

Plaintiff e360Insight, LLC is a marketer. It refers to itself as an Internet marketing company. Some, perhaps even a majority of people in this country, would call it a spammer.

The key in this case was that the judge relied on section 230 of the CDA — a section of the law that we often talk about for shielding service providers against the actions of its users. In this case, it’s a different part of section 230, which also shields ISPs from liability for “good faith” efforts to block objectionable content — and then the court says that it’s clear that Congress and the courts have determined that spam is objectionable content.

This isn’t the first time we’ve seen cases like this. A few years back a series of courts all ruled against a spam company which claimed that it had followed the “rules” in CAN SPAM, so filtering its spam was illegal. It’s nice to see the courts recognize that’s simply not true.

Filed Under: , , ,
Companies: comcast, e360

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Court Tells Spammer That It's Not Illegal For An ISP To Filter Its Emails”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment

Some and Perhaps

Um, no!

Last time I checked, “some” and “perhaps” the two operative words here were in no way certain!

Let’s put this to the test…

I would prefer “some” of the gold.
I would prefer “all” of the gold. ding-ding-ding!

I am certain I want “all” not “some” of hte gold.

Let’s try this again shall we? ­čÖé

“perhaps” I shall eat a pile of dog poop.

Um, I am dammed “certain” that I will not eat a pile of dog poop. ding-ding-ding!


English Class

Hey I’m Not a Bubba,

“Perhaps” you and e360 “shall” sit down together and eat “some,” if not “all” of that pile of dog poop.

SPAM is bad on many levels. Regardless of semantics, the court was absolutely right in its judgement.

Are you a lawyer? That was a lame lawyer comment if I ever saw one. “Your Honor, the car only slightly killed the pedestrian.”

Consider changing your handle to, “I Am Definitely a Bubba.”


Re: English Class

Hate to break it to you Andy, but “Bubba” and the AC weren’t referring to the case directly. They were referring to Mike’s use of “while also declaring in no uncertain terms that e360 is a spammer.” When in actuality, the ruling he quoted does leave wiggle room. Maybe you need to take an English class regarding literature and the flow thereof.



So much spam still gets through, that it’s nice the courts are sticking up for spam filtering. I’m one of those who forwards emails regularly to the spam department at my isp and email providers because it makes me angry that if I don’t log in for a few days, when I do finally log back in, I have 100 emails, and only about 7-8 are from people or companies that I even know or care about. So e360… I’m glad you lost.

About the majority/all statement… a judge could not possibly make the statement that ‘all’ people view it as spam… It would be an extremely broad generalization since he can’t read the minds of all Americans to find out what we all think, and he’s obviously not going to survey us all just to make sure. I think the original author was pretty accurate when they said “in no uncertain terms.”


My ISP blocks any OUTGOING email that I try to send that contains the word “LOTTERY.” It wasted about an hour with tech support to determine why the email was stuck in the outbox.

The outcome? “Too Bad, we’ve determined that emails that contain the word LOTTERY have a higher probability of being spam. My ISP is

Thoughtful Citizensays:


I wondering if this is such a good thing, im not knocking getting rid of spammers i hate them also but in the broader spectrum along the laws that got there case dismissed doesn’t it allow any ISP to filter any of your emails? that they deem of objectionable content even though it may not be to you? newsletters you may signed up for or your friend sending you an email? im just wondering, i may be wrong and ill appreciate it if someone will point out how i am.

Where does this leave free speech rights of non-spammers?

I have one-year contract with my ISP, and since my email address is tied to my ISP for many uses, it is not convenient to switch. And and since ISPs don’t advertise the list of words they block, how can I make a choice?

I cannot send emails that contain the word LOTTERY. There is no claim that I am spamming – I’m involved in political issue on the H-1B LOTTERY – and I can’t even send email to media and Congress that contains that phrase.

REAL SPAMMERS would use LOTERY, L(zero)TTERY, or such anyway, so the only harm is to legit users.

victor louissays:

Free Anti spam webinar, Why Today?s Spam Filters Fail

Spam isn?t just a big nuisance; it?s big business as well. So why is spam persisting?
Ferris Research estimates that spam will cost $140 billion worldwide in 2008, of which $42 billion will be in the United States alone. If you compare these numbers with Ferris?s 2007 estimates of $100 billion and $35 billion, you?ll see that the cost of spam has increased substantially over 12 months.

Register for a complimentary Webinar conducted by Abaca and Ferris research to know more about how you can stop this nuisance. To register please click the link below:


Objectionable Content?

Am I the only one who thinks that this part of section 230 of the CDA which “shields ISPs from liability for ‘good faith’ efforts to block objectionable content” is extremely DANGEROUS?

I mean, who gets to decide what is and what is not “objectionable” and therefore blockable?

I believe that giving ISPs free rights of censorship is not in the best interest of the people and can lead to serious damage to our freedom of speech rights.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop ┬╗

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Older Stuff
13:40 It's Great That Winnie The Pooh Is In The Public Domain; But He Should Have Been Free In 1982 (Or Earlier) (35)
12:06 Norton 360 Now Comes With Crypto Mining Capabilities And Sketchy Removal Process (28)
10:45 Chinese Government Dragnet Now Folding In American Social Media Platforms To Silence Dissent (14)
10:40 Daily Deal: The 2022 Ultimate Cybersecurity Analyst Preparation Bundle (0)
09:29 A Fight Between Facebook And The British Medical Journal Highlights The Difficulty Of Moderating 'Medical Misinformation' (9)
06:29 Court Ruling Paves The Way For Better, More Reliable Wi-Fi (4)
20:12 Eighth Circuit (Again) Says There's Nothing Wrong With Detaining Innocent Minors At Gunpoint (15)
15:48 China's Regulatory War On Its Gaming Industry Racks Up 14k Casualties (10)
13:31 Chinese Government Fines Local Car Dealerships For Surveilling While Not Being The Government (5)
12:08 Eric Clapton Pretends To Regret The Decision To Sue Random German Woman Who Listed A Bootleg Of One Of His CDs On Ebay (29)
10:44 ICE Is So Toxic That The DHS's Investigative Wing Is Asking To Be Completely Separated From It (29)
10:39 Daily Deal: The 2022 Complete Raspberry Pi And Arduino Developer Bundle (0)
09:31 Google Blocked An Article About Police From The Intercept... Because The Title Included A Phrase That Was Also A Movie Title (24)
06:22 Wireless Carriers Balk At FAA Demand For 5G Deployment Delays Amid Shaky Safety Concerns (16)
19:53 Tenth Circuit Denies Qualified Immunity To Social Worker Who Fabricated A Mother's Confession Of Child Abuse (35)
15:39 Sci-Hub's Creator Thinks Academic Publishers, Not Her Site, Are The Real Threat To Science, And Says: 'Any Law Against Knowledge Is Fundamentally Unjust' (34)
13:32 Federal Court Tells Proud Boys Defendants That Raiding The Capitol Building Isn't Covered By The First Amendment (25)
12:14 US Courts Realizing They Have A Judge Alan Albright Sized Problem In Waco (17)
10:44 Boston Police Department Used Forfeiture Funds To Hide Purchase Of Surveillance Tech From City Reps (16)
10:39 Daily Deal: The Ultimate Microsoft Excel Training Bundle (0)
09:20 NY Senator Proposes Ridiculously Unconstitutional Social Media Law That Is The Mirror Opposite Of Equally Unconstitutional Laws In Florida & Texas (25)
06:12 Telecom Monopolies Are Exploiting Crappy U.S. Broadband Maps To Block Community Broadband Grant Requests (7)
12:00 Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of 2021 At Techdirt (17)
10:00 Gaming Like It's 1926: Join The Fourth Annual Public Domain Game Jam (6)
09:00 New Year's Message: The Arc Of The Moral Universe Is A Twisty Path (33)
19:39 DHS, ICE Begin Body Camera Pilot Program With Surprisingly Good Policies In Place (7)
15:29 Remembering Techdirt Contributors Sherwin And Elliot (1)
13:32 DC Metro PD's Powerful Review Panel Keeps Giving Bad Cops Their Jobs Back (6)
12:11 Missouri Governor Still Expects Journalists To Be Prosecuted For Showing How His Admin Leaked Teacher Social Security Numbers (39)
10:48 Oversight Board Overturning Instagram Takedown Of Ayahuasca Post Demonstrates The Impossibility Of Content Moderation (10)
More arrow
This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it