Verizon to Pay for 'Spam Blockade' Class action settlement Monday Apr 03 2006 14:53 EDT A settlement has been proposed in the class action lawsuit over Verizon's aggressive spam blocking. According to Spam Kings, affected Verizon Internet Services customers may receive up to $49 if they failed to receive "legitimate email" between October 2004 and May 2005 from Asia or Europe. The lawsuit stems from Verizon's anti-spam strategy of briefly blocking all email from large swaths of IP addresses, effectively cordoning off entire countries from emailing Verizon customers. The attorneys for the class have asked for $1,400,000 for handling the case. |
1 edit |
Shameful!$1.4M for the attorney, $49 for the clients. Unless the attorney(s) worked full time on the case for literally years and years, they haven't earned such ridicilous sums of money. The system is broken badly. | |
|  |  rpeAMP
join:2000-12-02
San Antonio, TX
1 edit
1 recommendation |
rpeAMP
Member
2006-Apr-3 3:13 pm
Re: Shameful!said by EasyDoesIt:$1.4M for the attorney, $49 for the clients. Unless the attorney(s) worked full time on the case for literally years and years, they haven't earned such ridicilous sums of money. The system is broken badly. I used to think the same way until I worked for an attorney for a summer as an intern. Granted, he was a defense attorney, so he wasn't out to get anyone necessarily, but the man worked countless hours. If he ever made a fee that large a good portion of it (over half) went to administrative fees such as filing fees, travel expenses, experts, testimonies, payroll for other employees, the list goes on and on. That was just for one case, and he may have dozens currently open. I'm not saying he didn't make a good salary, he did; however, he worked incredibly long hours, day and night. I'm sure this isn't the case for all attorneys, and some make incredible margins on the amount of work they do, but I just wanted to offer some contrast to the anti-attorney sentiment. | |
| | |  R4M0NBrazilian Soccer Ownz Joo
join:2000-10-04
Glen Allen, VA |
R4M0N
Member
2006-Apr-3 4:58 pm
Re: Shameful!I came into this thread ready to rip attorneys a new one, then I read your post. You make a valid point. | |
| | | | rpeAMP
join:2000-12-02
San Antonio, TX |
rpeAMP
Member
2006-Apr-3 5:01 pm
Re: Shameful!said by R4M0N:I came into this thread ready to rip attorneys a new one, then I read your post. You make a valid point. Well hey I appreciate it. I would never say that my simple experience is how ALL attorneys operate, but it's just like everything else...it's hard for all of us not to generalize sometimes!! | |
|
| | |
to EasyDoesIt
$1.4 million isnt a lot of money for an attorney fee. Attorneys that work on class action law suits some times get up to $20 million. | |
| | | eco
Premium Member
join:2001-11-28
Wilmington, DE |
eco
Premium Member
2006-Apr-3 10:16 pm
Re: Shameful!$20 million? That's nothing. The class action tabacco lawyer got over $1 billion. | |
|
| |
Sign me right up!Unless you have to somehow prove mail was blocked.
Sure, I couldn't get email from Asia AND Europe.
Plus Verizon charged me a termination fee when I canceled.
Oops! Never mind, I switched over to Speakeasy before the action dates.
Actually, class action lawsuits are for the lawyers. The settlement tends to be negligible for the class members. Sort of like clipping a coupon to get cents off you next Verizon bill. | |
| |  FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ |
FFH5
Premium Member
2006-Apr-3 3:38 pm
Re: Sign me right up!said by birdfeedr:Unless you have to somehow prove mail was blocked. Yes, how do you prove you DIDN'T get something. Most people won't even bother trying to get anything out of this settlement. The only ones who will make out will be the lawyers involved. And I give Verizon credit for actually trying to do something about SPAM. No system is perfect, but at least they tried. | |
| | |  nixenRockin' the Boxen
Premium Member
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA |
nixen
Premium Member
2006-Apr-3 4:06 pm
Re: Sign me right up!said by FFH5:said by birdfeedr:Unless you have to somehow prove mail was blocked. Yes, how do you prove you DIDN'T get something. Most people won't even bother trying to get anything out of this settlement. The only ones who will make out will be the lawyers involved. Depends. If he ruling judge actually wants members of the class to get their due, he would force Verizon to turn over their mail or other logs to determine what got blocked. This, of course, assumes that it was blocked sufficiently late in the SMTP conversation to establish intended recipients and not just blocked at the edge routers. -tom | |
| | | | | |
Re: Sign me right up!said by nixen:said by FFH5:said by birdfeedr:Unless you have to somehow prove mail was blocked. Yes, how do you prove you DIDN'T get something. Most people won't even bother trying to get anything out of this settlement. The only ones who will make out will be the lawyers involved. Depends. If he ruling judge actually wants members of the class to get their due, he would force Verizon to turn over their mail or other logs to determine what got blocked. This, of course, assumes that it was blocked sufficiently late in the SMTP conversation to establish intended recipients and not just blocked at the edge routers. -tom I don't think VZ ignored emails from suspect IPs, they were bounced back as undeliverable (if I read their amended policy correctly). But they may have ignored some of the emails during that period. Hard to say. Would they have kept the logs this long? | |
| | | | | nixenRockin' the Boxen
Premium Member
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA |
nixen
Premium Member
2006-Apr-3 11:27 pm
Re: Sign me right up!said by birdfeedr:I don't think VZ ignored emails from suspect IPs, they were bounced back as undeliverable (if I read their amended policy correctly). But they may have ignored some of the emails during that period. Hard to say. Would they have kept the logs this long? Depends. It would be normal for the judge to order all records kept from the date of the filing of the complaint. -tom | |
|
| |  sporkmedrop the crantini and move it, sister
MVM
join:2000-07-01
Morristown, NJ |
to FFH5
said by FFH5:And I give Verizon credit for actually trying to do something about SPAM. No system is perfect, but at least they tried. They took the lazy and stupid way out. They deserve no credit. If blocking huge swaths of foreign IP space worked, everyone would be doing it (and they aren't). Say what you will about AOL, Earthlink and others, but they did put real time into building in-house anti-spam systems. This was just a stupid hack, and the fact that it was allowed to go live raises questions about the general competency of these folks outside of their old-timey business divisions. | |
|
 KeepOnRockinMusic Lover Forever
Premium Member
join:2002-11-08
Beaverton, OR
1 recommendation |
No Good Deed... goes unpunished! So, Verizon's spam filters were not perfect and sometimes blocked the wrong thing. Show me any filters from any ISP or software that are 100% perfect. A class-action lawsuit? Give me a break  I think Verizon should have just let these customers recieve all the spam and not filtered anything at all! This proposed settlement is bogus!  | |
|
1 edit |
But Verizon PROMISED they wouldn't interfereSo, umm, once again we see that Verizon is not trustworthy. On the one hand, they were blocking spam, which they call a good thing to do. But wait, they also blocked legitimate e-mail.
Didn't Verizons Mouthpiece Organization (aka The US Telecom Association cover this already?)
"Have we sought to control or restrict the Internet?" Walter McCormick, president and CEO of the U.S. Telecom Association, which represents a wide swath of the industry, asked the senators. "No, we have not. We have instead invested, grown and increased the scale and the scope of the Internet."
Lets see now, you blocked e-mail. Hmm.. I think that falls under the word 'RESTRICT'. Oh, you did it for our own good then? Why, I'm sure that's ok.. NOT. You lie Verizon, and your mouthpiece propaganda organizations lie for you. Their profits are predicated on the concept of control, thus they will ALWAYS restrict and control what they think they can get away with. Hopefully, Verizon loses billions for this travesty. | |
| | InsderThere never was a second I in my name
Premium Member
join:2005-04-27
Salem, MA |
Insder
Premium Member
2006-Apr-3 3:20 pm
Re: But Verizon PROMISED they wouldn't interfereI often didn't recieve email from Portugal, but I used a Yahoo soon after so no big deal. Guess I'll file the claim and see what happens. | |
| |  JLevinworthJames Levinworth
Premium Member
join:2004-11-21
Muddy Field
2 edits
1 recommendation |
to G_Poobah
I call G_Poohah in the BBR death pool!
j/k........ | |
|
1 edit |
$1.4 million, Gee whiz$1.4 million, Gee whiz, They'll never even notice It or miss It now that Verizon has raised $3.7 Billion in cash from the sale of some foreign telecom assets It had.  What do the users get? Maybe $3.50 or so. Verizon is getting off lightly for blocking legitimate email traffic.  | |
| |  MaxoYour tax dollars at work.
Premium Member
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL |
Maxo
Premium Member
2006-Apr-4 10:43 am
Re: $1.4 million, Gee whizI think this is stupid. Unless Verizon was legally obliged to get the e-mails to these customers, then they shouldn't be penalised for it. The system is pretty simple, purchase a product, if it sucks then stop purchasing that product. Now adays, if the product sucks, then sue. I think the ruling should be, anyone who didn't receive emails should be allowed to cancel sans-ETF. | |
| | | | |
Re: $1.4 million, Gee whizI'm paying for It every month, So I'd think their under contract to do what their contracted to do.  | |
| | | | MaxoYour tax dollars at work.
Premium Member
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL |
Maxo
Premium Member
2006-Apr-4 5:01 pm
Re: $1.4 million, Gee whizsaid by zoom314:I'm paying for It every month, So I'd think their under contract to do what their contracted to do. If their TOS is like other ISPs then maybe not. I'm not about to read their TOS though. | |
|
 dadkinsCan you do Blu?
MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
1 edit |
LOL!Nevermind. | |
|  oliphantI Have 8 Boobies
Premium Member
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA
1 recommendation |
oliphant
Premium Member
2006-Apr-3 3:50 pm
Bitchen...Do we get to look forward to a new Class Action Lawsuit Recovery Fee on our bills?
That is typically how telcos like to itemize their overhead.
This is just more reason why there shouldn't be class action suits. Each user should have to prove their own damages...essentially opting in, rather that the default opting out requirement.
This nonsense just costs customers money and makes the greedy blood sucking lawyers rich. | |
| |  ylen131
join:2000-02-09
Canoga Park, CA |
Re: Bitchen...to hard to spread word to everyone. Welcome to our legal system. | |
| | | oliphantI Have 8 Boobies
Premium Member
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA |
oliphant
Premium Member
2006-Apr-3 4:24 pm
Re: Bitchen...What's to spread? Those damaged should be aware that they were damaged...those that weren't aware I guess weren't damaged very much. | |
| | | | ylen131
join:2000-02-09
Canoga Park, CA |
Re: Bitchen...said by oliphant:What's to spread? Those damaged should be aware that they were damaged...those that weren't aware I guess weren't damaged very much. irrelevent, if you were damaged you deserve right to get compensation. It don't matter how much you got damaged all that matters that you did. One of the person that was blocked maybe was send really important email that person wasn't even aware of and it got blocked by verizon | |
| | | | | oliphantI Have 8 Boobies
Premium Member
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA
3 edits
1 recommendation |
oliphant
Premium Member
2006-Apr-3 4:36 pm
Re: Bitchen...Hardly irrelevant because all damages must be representable in a monetary value otherwise there is nothing to sue for. The fact that they were damaged isn't enough. Point being, HOW MUCH compensation as each individual is damaged differently if at all. One person not getting an email from a friend would not be equally damaged as someone not receiving their employment contract thus losing a job or something.
The ONLY relevance in court is how much you were damaged. Just because you didn't get an email, doesn't mean you were damaged to the point of compensation. IOW, not getting an email from a friend is worth $0 in damages. It doesn't mean it wasn't an inconvenience, but that inconvenience has no value unless the damaged individual can prove the value of the email.
There should be no class of so-called damaged people and a rich lawyer. Everyone should have to prove their case and Verizon should only have to pay out to those individuals who proved their damages individually. | |
| | | | | | ylen131
join:2000-02-09
Canoga Park, CA |
Re: Bitchen...if we are to follow your logic then company will ever get punished for anything. It would mean that each individual would have to hire their own lawyer and sue verizon to get compensation for the claim. Just the cost of lawyer would be more then they could get from verizon resulting in no lawsuit filed unless a person/organization have so much money that they are willing to spend own money to get after a company for damaged that are less then what it cost them to spend on a lawyer. At the end verizon would just continue blocking email and not worrying about lawsuit if we to follow your logic | |
| | | | | | | oliphantI Have 8 Boobies
Premium Member
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA
2 edits
1 recommendation |
oliphant
Premium Member
2006-Apr-3 4:58 pm
Re: Bitchen...Sure, if there was an actual breech of contract they could be held liable for actual damages. I'm just not seeing the breech in this instance, nor what the damages would be monetarily speaking. And sure, Verizon has the right to block email should they choose as the subscriber agreement specifically states they don't guarantee it. Consequently, us customers have a choice as well...subscribe or not subscribe. said by Verizon :
16.4 IN NO EVENT SHALL VERIZON (OR ITS OFFICERS, EMPLOYEES, PARENT, SUBSIDIARIES, OR AFFILIATES), ITS THIRD PARTY LICENSORS, PROVIDERS OR SUPPLIERS, INCLUDING GSPs, BE LIABLE FOR: (A) ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, LOST PROFITS OR LOSS OF REVENUE OR DAMAGE TO DATA ARISING OUT OF THE USE, PARTIAL USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE SERVICE, REGARDLESS OF THE TYPE OF CLAIM OR THE NATURE OF THE CAUSE OF ACTION, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, THOSE ARISING UNDER CONTRACT, TORT, NEGLIGENCE OR STRICT LIABILITY, EVEN IF VERIZON HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH CLAIM OR DAMAGES, OR (B) ANY CLAIMS AGAINST YOU BY ANY OTHER PARTY.
Every subscriber agreed to this...which is Verizon can not be held liable even if it's their fault. It sucks, but that is the way it is. | |
| | | | | | | | ylen131
join:2000-02-09
Canoga Park, CA |
Re: Bitchen...you're wrong, they can and are being held liable as they just agree to the pay the fine. | |
| | | | | | | | | oliphantI Have 8 Boobies
Premium Member
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA
1 edit |
oliphant
Premium Member
2006-Apr-3 5:05 pm
Re: Bitchen...No they aren't. They're certainly paying out without admitting fault which is what every settlement of these types say. Again...read the subscriber agreement » www.verizon.net/policies ··· opup.asp as to whether or not they're actually liable. They clearly aren't. In this case, as is most cases it's a money game. They pay the lawyers $1.4M to make it go away, or $2M, $3M or $5M to beat them outright. They go with the numbers, not with what is right or wrong on principle. And what "fine" are you referring to? A settlement is not a fine. It's a settlement. | |
| | | | | | | | | | ylen131
join:2000-02-09
Canoga Park, CA |
Re: Bitchen...said by oliphant:No they aren't. They're certainly paying out without admitting fault which is what every settlement of these types say. Again...read the subscriber agreement as to whether or not they're actually liable. In this case, as is most cases it's a money game. They pay the lawyers $1.4M to make it go away, or $2M, $3M or $5M to beat them outright. They go with the numbers, not with what is right or wrong on principle. And what "fine" are you referring to? A settlement is not a fine. It's a settlement. settlement and a fine at the end mean same thing, company is paying out money and that's all that matter. Hopefully that will keep other company from trying same thing for fear of being sued | |
| | | | | | | | | |
•••
| | sporkmedrop the crantini and move it, sister
MVM
join:2000-07-01
Morristown, NJ |
to oliphant
said by oliphant:Do we get to look forward to a new Class Action Lawsuit Recovery Fee on our bills? 8 thumbs up on that! | |
|
| |
can i sue causeI get spam this shouldnt even be a case these people should be happy they didnt get spam | |
| |
••••••••••••••••• | | |
Even if the lawyers mostly win......at least Verizon's behavior will likely change.
If you didn't have an account with Verizon or try to send to customers using Verizon, you really have no idea how blatant and one sided this abuse was. They basically blanketed email blocks from any international IP range period. And what's worse is they gave the sender a 4xx error message, asking them to try again later with no intent of ever actually accepting the message...
So, if your definition of 'good email filtering' is that only your relatives who also have have 'joined in' to the Verizon network can send to you, then it worked great. It essentially turned their email system into something that looked like AOL's old closed off network... | |
| |
•••• |  Rob AAdjusting
Premium Member
join:2005-01-17
Pompton Plains, NJ
1 recommendation |
Rob A
Premium Member
2006-Apr-3 5:04 pm
That's why...I never use an isp's email. I mean, I love my verizon dsl but I would never use their email. I don't trust any isp when it comes to email. Plus if you change your isp, you gotta change your email. | |
| | |
Repeating MyselfI've said this before and I'll say it again, I don't care if I'm repeating myself because this is just too important.
Spammers will continue to find new and more ridiculous and invasive ways to do their thing.
Anti-spammers will continue to try and stay ahead of them.
Does anyone ever see anything changing this? Legislation is meaningless, technology is meaningless, enforcement is meaningless, and education is meaningless.
There is only one point that needs to be understood regarding spam, and I can't stress this enough: there will always be a segment of the population so ignorant, so stupid, and so unable to BE educated, that they alone will make this industry profitable. There is always a man who will buy the pills. There is always a person who will refinance the mortgage. There will always be someone who clicks on the horse porn. These are the enemies, and these are the people who have been the enemies from the very, very beginning, because spam is only one of the monsters they have been responsible for feeding. | |
|  pog4
Premium Member
join:2004-06-03
Kihei, HI |
pog4
Premium Member
2006-Apr-3 8:14 pm
The whole sordid history of this is in the Verizon forums..One thread is here: » Emails not getting through to my email accountThis was not your typical spam blocking... it was a wholesale blockade (at the router level, IIRC). Reckless, arrogant and incompetent are all words to use to describe their handling of it. However, I won't bother with claiming any $ now... my area is no longer Verizon (now it's Hawaiian Telcom). Besides, I've already received several free months service from Verizon's retention department... that's payment enough. | |
| tlcbob
join:2001-07-11
Harrisburg, PA |
tlcbob
Member
2006-Apr-4 10:14 pm
I HATE SPAM!I will let verizon keep their $49 for trying to keep junk out of my box. Oversees ISPs are blatant about allowing spammers to use their servers. Indonesia, China, Russia and the Netherlands are the biggest abusers. I block ALL of these IP ranges in our email filter. If these countries want to do business with me, they had better "take out the trash!"
Simple test: look at the source of your next junk mail - record the sender IP address - go to ARIN.NET and do a WHOIS on the address - Most probably you will see that APNIC or some other foreign registry is home for the junk mail server!
I agree, Verizon was outside its bounds for making that decision for it's clients. They should have made the filtering of these IPs optional. | |
|
| |
|
|
What do the users get? Maybe $3.50 or so. Verizon is getting off lightly for blocking legitimate email traffic. 
