IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
E360INSIGHT, LLC,
an Illinois Limited Liability Company, and
DAVID LINHARDT, an individual
Plaintiffs,
v.
THE SPAMHAUS PROJECT,
a company limited by guarantee and
organized under the laws of England, aka
THE SPAMHAUS PROJECT LTD,
Defendant.
PROPOSED ORDER
This matter coming before the Court upon Plaintiffs’ motion for judgment on the default of Defendant, all Parties given due notice, and the Court being fully advised in the premises; THIS COURT FINDS THAT:
As a result of the default of Defendant, and upon showing of harm to Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs are entitled to relief sought in their complaint for monetary and equitable relief and for costs incident to the case, specifically
1. Defendant has wrongfully placed Plaintiffs on its blacklist of companies who have sent “spam” email.
2. Defendant has tortiously interfered with Plaintiffs contracts with its suppliers and customers.
3. Defendant has tortiously interfered with Plaintiffs prospective economic advantage by blocking email Plaintiffs have a right to send.
4. Defendant has defamed Plaintiffs by publishing false statements about Plaintiffs on its website.
5. Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages as a result of the reckless and intentional actions of Defendant.
IT IS ORDERED:
For all of the foregoing reasons, the Court grants Plaintiffs e360Insight, LLC and David Linhardt’s Motion For Default Judgment And Order For Permanent Injunction as follows:
A. Defendant Spamhaus shall not ever take any action to cause email sent by Plaintiff e360 Insight, Plaintiff David Linhardt, or any affiliates, subsidiaries, or related companies owned or controlled by e360 Insight or Linhardt (collectively the “Plaintiff Parties”) to be blocked, delayed, altered, or interrupted in any way (including, without limitation, by listing Plaintiff Parties on Defendant’s website on the ROKSO list, within an SBL listing on Defendant’s website, using blacklisting technology in concert or conjunction with others, or taking any other action to cause any such interference) unless Spamhaus can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that Plaintiff Parties have violated CAN-SPAM or other relevant provisions of US law. Such clear and convincing evidence may only be shown after providing Plaintiff Parties an opportunity to review any alleged offending email, including a review of the email header and content (in its entirety), and providing Plaintiff Parties an opportunity to show the offending email was not sent in violation of US law to the satisfaction of a reasonable person. If such clear and convincing evidence is shown, then (and only then) may Spamhaus list the Internet Provider (IP) address, and only the IP address, from which the offending email was sent on its website. Spamhaus shall not list entire networks or ranges of IP addresses owned or operated by Plaintiffs simply because they are registered in the Plaintiff’s name or physical address without meeting the clear and convincing standard for the IP address in question.
B. Defendant Spamhaus shall also, within 5 business days of the date hereof, post on its website at both the main home page and at the ROKSO jump page, a message of 1 inch by 1 inch, the text of which is to be reasonably approved by Plaintiffs, and which, generally, indicates Plaintiffs were erroneously listed on the website as spammers, and that Plaintiffs are not spammers. Defendant Spamhaus shall leave such message on its site for a period of six months.
C. Defendant Spamhaus shall not contact (and shall not cause others to so contact) any customers or suppliers of the Plaintiff Parties in efforts to cause said customers or suppliers to cease doing business with Plaintiff Parties, nor shall Spamhaus contact (or cause others to so contact) customers or suppliers of Plaintiff Parties and allege or assert that Plaintiff Parties are “Internet Spammers” or other like term.
D. Defendant is ordered to pay Plaintiffs Two Million Four Hundred Sixty Five Thousand Dollars ($2,465,000) for lost business as a result of the tortious interference with Plaintiffs’ contracts.
E. Defendant is ordered to pay Plaintiffs and additional Nine Million Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($9,250,000) for lost revenue resulting from the interference with Plaintiffs’ prospective economic advantage due to Defendant’s blocking revenue producing email messages to consumers seeking those messages, and for Defendant’s defamation of Plaintiffs.
F. Defendant is ordered to pay Plaintiffs Fifteen Million Dollars ($15,000,000) as punitive damages as a result of Defendant’s intentional and reckless actions toward Plaintiffs.
G. Defendant is ordered to pay Plaintiffs Forty Thousand Six Hundred Ninety Five Dollars and Fifty Five Cents ($40,695.55) for legal fees and other costs incident to this action.
ENTERED: September ___, 2006
_____________________________________
CHARLES P. KOCORAS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE