Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
5Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Facebook Spam Lawsuit Decision Sanford Wallace

Facebook Spam Lawsuit Decision Sanford Wallace

Ratings: (0)|Views: 525|Likes:
Published by FindLaw
Judge's opinion re: Facebook's $711 million dollar judgment against spammers
Judge's opinion re: Facebook's $711 million dollar judgment against spammers

More info:

Published by: FindLaw on Oct 31, 2009
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

11/06/2012

pdf

text

original

 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728This disposition is not designated for publication in the official reports.
1
Case No. C 09-798 JF (RS)ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S RENEWED MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT(JFLC2)
**E-Filed 10/29/2009**
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIASAN JOSE DIVISION
FACEBOOK, INC., a Delaware Corporation,Plaintiff,v.SANFORD WALLACE, et al.,Defendants.Case Number C 09-798 JF (RS)ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
1
RENEWED MOTION FOR DEFAULTJUDGMENT[re: docket no. 89]Plaintiff Facebook, Inc. (“Facebook”) seeks default judgment against Defendant SanfordWallace (“Wallace”). Wallace did not oppose the motion or appear at the hearing on September 18, 2009. For the reasons discussed below, Facebook’s motion for default judgment will begranted, although the Court will not award all of the statutory damages sought by Facebook.
Case5:09-cv-00798-JFDocument91 Filed10/29/09 Page1 of 7
 
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282
Case No. C 09-798 JF (RS)ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S RENEWED MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT(JFLC2)
I. BACKGROUND
Facebook is a well-known social networking website with more than 175 million users.Facebook users must register with thewebsite and agree to Facebook’s Terms of Use. Uponregistration, users are given unique usernames and passwords to access their own user profiles aswell as the profiles of their “friends.” Users may send messages to each other through theFacebook website, either by e-mail or by postings made on a user’s “wall.” To maintain theintegrity of its website, Facebook maintains strict policies against spam or any other form of unsolicited advertising. The Terms of Use prohibit any activity that would impair the operationof Facebook’s website, including the use of data mining “bots” to gain access to users’ logininformation, the posting of unsolicited advertising on the website or circulation of suchadvertising via e-mail, or any use of another person’s account without Facebook’s prior authorization.Facebook alleges that Defendants Wallace, Adam Arzoomanian (“Arzoomanian”), andScott Shaw (“Shaw”) are registered Facebook users who are bound by the Terms of Use. Since November 2008, Defendants allegedly have engaged in a phishing and spamming scheme thathas compromised the accounts of a substantial number of Facebook users. The scheme generallyoperates as follows: Defendants send out emails to multiple Facebook users. The emails appear to be legitimate messages and ask the recipients to click on a link to another website. Thatwebsite is a phishing site designed to trick users into divulging their Facebook login information.Once users divulge the information, Defendants then use it to send spam to the friends of theusers, and as the cycle repeats the number of compromised Facebook accounts increases rapidly.Facebook also alleges that certain spam messages redirect users to websites that pay Defendantsfor each user visit.On February 24, 2009, Facebook filed this action against Wallace, Arzoomanian, andShaw, asserting that their phishing and spamming activities violate (1) the Controlling theAssault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act (“CAN-SPAM Act”), 15 U.S.C. §7701
et seq
.; (2) the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030
et seq
.; (3) Cal. PenalCode § 502; and (4) Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22948.
Case5:09-cv-00798-JFDocument91 Filed10/29/09 Page2 of 7
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728Wallace has not formally appeared in the action. On June 2, 2009, after the Clerk’s
2
entry of default, he did file an affidavit in opposition to Facebook’s motion for contempt. It isunclear whether the filing of the affidavit constituted a sufficient informal appearance to entitleWallace to notice of the motion for default judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2). TheCourt need not resolve that question because the docket reflects that Wallace registered his emailaddress with the Court’s Electronic Case Filing (“ECF”) system, and that the ECF systemautomatically served Wallace with the motion for default judgment when it was filed.3
Case No. C 09-798 JF (RS)ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S RENEWED MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT(JFLC2)
On March 2, 2009, the Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) enjoiningDefendants from engaging in the alleged phishing and spamming activities. On March 24, 2009,the Court issued a preliminary injunction enjoining the alleged misconduct. Facebook subsequently obtained a Clerk’s entry of default against Wallace and sought default judgmentagainst him as well as contempt sanctions for violating the TRO and preliminary injunctionissued in this case. The Court set those motions for hearing on June 12, 2009. On June 11,2009, Facebook filed a status report notifying the Court that Wallace had filed a bankruptcy petition in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Nevada. The Court conductedthe hearing as scheduled on June 12. Shortly thereafter the Court issued an order staying theaction in light of the automatic bankruptcy stay, and indicating that the Court had referred thematter to the United States Attorney’s Office with a request that Wallace be prosecuted for criminal contempt. Order of July 7, 2009. The Court terminated without prejudice Facebook’smotions for default judgment and criminal contempt.On August 4, 2009, Facebook filed a status report informing the Court that Wallace’s bankruptcy action had been dismissed and that the automatic bankruptcy stay no longer was ineffect. On the same date, Facebook renewed its motion for default judgment, and set the motionfor hearing on September 18, 2009.Wallace did not file opposition to Facebook’s renewed motion, although he receivednotice of the motion at his email address of record. After reviewing Facebook’s motion and
2
supporting documents, as well as the entire record in this case, the Court concludes that themotion for default judgment is well-taken, although the Court will not award all of the statutorydamages sought by Facebook.Facebook requests statutory damages for 14,214,753 violations of the CAN-SPAM Act at
Case5:09-cv-00798-JF Document91 Filed10/29/09 Page3 of 7

Activity (5)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads
Steve Cassels liked this
Emanuel McCray liked this
Rkaisermofo liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->