SpamSuite.com
A Document Repository for Spam-Related Legal Documents
SearchSupport the SiteOur SponsorsLinks and SupportersCopyright Except where otherwise noted, this work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
All copyright interests in the legal filings contained herein are expressly disclaimed. Documents, opinions, and comments provided on any Spamsuite.com page are for general information purposes only and are not intended to substitute for informed professional legal advice. Spamsuite.com expressly disclaims liability for any opinion expressed in comments. Spamsuite.com does not endorse any article comment. |
e360Insight, LLC. v Comcast CorporationOn January 15, 2008, e360Insight, LLC., filed suit against Comcast for blocking mail. This will be the sad saga of this short lawsuit filed by a little company that can't seem to deliver its email without the assistance of the federal judiciary. Apparently, someone forgot to tell e360's principal and its attorneys about 47 USC 230(c)(2)(A), provided here with emphasis added: (2) Civil liability No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of — (A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected
|
Upcoming Dates
 Navigatione360Insight, LLC. v Comcast CorporationUser loginRecent comments
Syndicate |
I don't think that they are forgetting 230(c)(2)(A)...
Their complaint hinges on what they call a DOS attack.
If Comcast is actually committing a DOS attack then they're not covered by 230(c)(2) (A). This is the point Fish was trying to make on his blog.
I would think that Comcast would get this tossed because they are not committing a DOS attack. Lindhardt's claims don't match the definition.
"tar pitting" isn't an attack.
If anything Comcast would be considered of not having their servers configured to be 100% RFC compliant which is not illegal. (Note: VS posted on NANAE that a compliant server would timeout within 3 hours and the complaint claims that the average server timeout was closer to 6.)
Post new comment