Spam Law practice area category
Spam Law practice area categorySpam Law

Kronenberger Rosenfeld Secures Massive Attorneys’ Fees Order in Spam Lawsuit

  |   Friday, May 21, 2010

On May 19, 2010 the Honorable Joseph C. Spero granted defendant Azoogleads.com, Inc.’s motion for attorneys’ fees against ASIS Internet services in the amount of $806,978.84. Renowned spam law firm, Kronenberger Rosenfeld, represented Azoogleads.com in this proceeding. In 2005, ASIS had initiated a lawsuit against 20 defendants, alleging that all of the defendants, including Azoogleads.com, had procured the sending of several thousand unlawful commercial emails in violation of CAN-SPAM, 15 U.S.C. §7701 et seq. and California Business & Professions Code section 17529.5. The district court granted summary judgment to Azoogleads.com, finding that the plaintiff had not suffered the necessary adverse effects to maintain a CAN-SPAM action and that the plaintiff had offered no evidence that Azoogleads.com had known about let alone procured the emails at issue in the lawsuit. Azoogleads.com subsequently moved the Court for an award of fees. The court granted Azoogleads.com’s motion, finding:

Here, the Court concludes that while ASIS may not have acted out of bad faith in initiating litigation against Azoogle, it at least acted unreasonably. Even assuming ASIS might have reasonably believed when it initially named Azoogle as a defendant that it would be able to establish standing – a question that turned on an as-yet unresolved issue of law – there was never any evidence that Azoogle sent or procured the emails on which ASIS based its claims. Rather, it is apparent that ASIS sued Azoogle based on little more than speculation that there might be a connection between those emails and Azoogle. ASIS then continued to litigate even as its discovery efforts turned up no evidence in support of its claims against Azoogle. Having initiated over 20 similar actions, and sued over 20 defendants in this action alone, an award of attorneys’ fees here is necessary to deter ASIS and other plaintiffs hoping to profit under the CAN-SPAM Act from casting such a wide net. The Court also concludes that an award of fees advances the interests of compensation to the extent that Defendant Azoogle was forced to defend itself against ASIS’s groundless claims, resulting in years of litigation and over a million dollars in attorneys’ fees.

ASIS Internet Services v. Optin Global, et al., Case No. 05-5124 (N.D. Cal.) [D.E. 483]

Click here to view the Court's order.






Related articles

Spam Law
Spam Law practice area category
How Email Marketers Can Reduce the Risk of

Due to restrictive interpretations of the 2013 CAN-SPAM Act over the last decade, many spam plaintiffs find it more convenient to bring lawsuits instead under...

Read More

Spam Law
Spam Law practice area category
Consent Requirements for Federal Text (SMS) Message Spam

The federal government is poised to implement new, stricter consumer consent rules designed to “further reduce the opportunities for telemarketers to place unwanted or unexpected...

Read More

Spam Law
Spam Law practice area category
Internet Law Firm Succeeds on Summary Judgment in

On March 27, 2008 the Honorable Joseph C. Spero of the Northern District of California granted summary judgment to defendant Azoogleads.com, Inc. in a spam...

Read More

Spam Law
Spam Law practice area category
Winning the Fight Against Email Spam Plaintiffs

There have been many changes in the realm of email spam law since 2003, which was the year when both the federal CAN-SPAM Act and...

Read More

Open Newsletter Signup Popup