Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

BobVila.com in Nation's First Anti-Spam Case

By Samuel Fineman
March 01, 2004

Through his commercial Web site, home improvement guru Bob Vila recently became the nation's first target of the new federal anti-spam law, according to attorney John L. Fallat.

Fallat filed a lawsuit in federal court on behalf of Foster City-based Internet Service Provider Hypertouch, Inc., alleging Sacramento-based Blue-Stream Media and Boston-based BVWebTies LLC, owner of BobVila.com, violated the Federal CAN-SPAM Act (Control- ling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act of 2003) by sending Hypertouch and its customers unwanted and unsolicited electronic mail advertisements for Bob Vila's “Home Again Newsletter.”

“The CAN-SPAM Act provides only the most minimal protections to the public,” says Hypertouch President and Founder Joe Wagner. “But BobVila.com and BlueStream Media failed to observe even those.” The suit alleges that the defendants sent spam e-mail advertisements with fraudulent headers and no legally required physical address. They also sent e-mail to randomly generated and harvested addresses, even to addresses that had been submitted to the “opted-out” links of other spam.

“Most Internet Service Providers (ISPs) advise their customers to never reply to a spam in an attempt to 'opt-out' because that will only confirm for the spammer that an email address is 'live,'” says Wagner. “BobVila.com and BlueStream Media's actions graphically show how harmful the CAN-SPAM Act is by requiring recipients to reply to the spam they receive.”

“While ultimately we feel that the CAN-SPAM is an open license to spam with very little protection for the public, we will zealously use what few protections are available to punish unrepentant spammers,” says Fallat. “We want to send a strong message to other would-be spammers, and the companies that hire them.”

“BobVila.com even refused to assure Hypertouch that they would never use BlueStream Media in the future,” Wagner adds. “I cannot understand why any legitimate business would run the tremendous legal and public relations risk in harassing millions of people with spam.”

Anyone who has information about the marketing and/or business practices of BobVila.com or BlueStream Media is invited to contact attorney John Fallat at 415-457-3773 or e-mail him at [email protected]. Additional information is available at http://%20legal.hypertouch.com/.

For more on the CAN-SPAM Act, see “The CAN-SPAM Act: Regulates, Doesn't Eliminate, Spam” in our February 2004 issue.

Wire service reports contributed to this article.

Through his commercial Web site, home improvement guru Bob Vila recently became the nation's first target of the new federal anti-spam law, according to attorney John L. Fallat.

Fallat filed a lawsuit in federal court on behalf of Foster City-based Internet Service Provider Hypertouch, Inc., alleging Sacramento-based Blue-Stream Media and Boston-based BVWebTies LLC, owner of BobVila.com, violated the Federal CAN-SPAM Act (Control- ling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act of 2003) by sending Hypertouch and its customers unwanted and unsolicited electronic mail advertisements for Bob Vila's “Home Again Newsletter.”

“The CAN-SPAM Act provides only the most minimal protections to the public,” says Hypertouch President and Founder Joe Wagner. “But BobVila.com and BlueStream Media failed to observe even those.” The suit alleges that the defendants sent spam e-mail advertisements with fraudulent headers and no legally required physical address. They also sent e-mail to randomly generated and harvested addresses, even to addresses that had been submitted to the “opted-out” links of other spam.

“Most Internet Service Providers (ISPs) advise their customers to never reply to a spam in an attempt to 'opt-out' because that will only confirm for the spammer that an email address is 'live,'” says Wagner. “BobVila.com and BlueStream Media's actions graphically show how harmful the CAN-SPAM Act is by requiring recipients to reply to the spam they receive.”

“While ultimately we feel that the CAN-SPAM is an open license to spam with very little protection for the public, we will zealously use what few protections are available to punish unrepentant spammers,” says Fallat. “We want to send a strong message to other would-be spammers, and the companies that hire them.”

“BobVila.com even refused to assure Hypertouch that they would never use BlueStream Media in the future,” Wagner adds. “I cannot understand why any legitimate business would run the tremendous legal and public relations risk in harassing millions of people with spam.”

Anyone who has information about the marketing and/or business practices of BobVila.com or BlueStream Media is invited to contact attorney John Fallat at 415-457-3773 or e-mail him at [email protected]. Additional information is available at http://%20legal.hypertouch.com/.

For more on the CAN-SPAM Act, see “The CAN-SPAM Act: Regulates, Doesn't Eliminate, Spam” in our February 2004 issue.

Wire service reports contributed to this article.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.

Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.

Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York Image

In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?

The Article 8 Opt In Image

The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.

The Cost of Making Partner Image

Making partner isn't cheap, and the cost is more than just the years of hard work and stress that associates put in as they reach for the brass ring.