Web concerns [legal aspects]

Spamming along A federal court in Alexandria, Virginia, has held that spammer LGCM, Inc. was liable to America Online (AOL) for fraud. LGCM thwarted AOL’s anti-spam software, the court found, and sent out over AOL’s system millions of unsolicited emails that solicited business for pornographic Web sites. The court’s November 1998 order of summary judgment required LGCM to cease abusing AOL’s system and to pay AOL damages to be assessed subsequently. AOL claimed that LGCM sent more than 92 million e-mails over a six-month period to AOL members. LGCM entered AOL chat rooms to harvest AOL member e-mail addresses, by means of extractor programs adapted to evade AOL’s antispam filters. LGCM then sent out its spam using an “aol.com” header to make AOL’s name appear in the “from:” line at the top of messages. As a result AOL members thought that AOL was sending the spam inviting them to patronize porno sites, or at least was endorsing the promotion. According to AOL, LGCM injured AOL in several ways. First, AOL server capacity was consumed in transmitting the spam. This forced AOL to upgrade its computer facilities to handle the rest of AOL’s load without excessive delays. It also antagonized AOL’s members in various ways. For one thing, delay did occur, and customers blamed AOL for degraded service. Some customers quit, and AOL lost their business. Customers associated AOL with pornographic spamming, which also hurt AOL. In all, over just part of the spamming period, 450,000 customers complained to AOL about LGCM’s spam. The facts concerning LGCM’s conduct established at least a half-dozen violations of state and federal law according to the court. First, LGCM’s sending e-mails under AOL’s name (the aol.com URL) was a false designation of origin under the federal trademark act. In effect, LGCM was masquerading under AOL’s trademark. The same conduct “diluted” and “tarnished” AOL’s distinctive AOL name by associating it with pornography. Second, the conduct violated the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030). That law prohibits anyone from accessing a computer without authorization and thereby obtaining information from a protected computer. The court held that LGCM’s use of extractor programs to harvest e-mail addresses from AOL chat rooms amounted to unauthorized accessing of AOL computers to gain e-mail address information. Third, the same law prohibits anyone from accessing a computer without authorization and thereby causing damage. The laundry list of damages that AOL suffered established a violation of this provision of the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, as well. Virginia has its own Computer Crimes Act, which makes it a crime to use a computer or computer network without authority and with the intent of converting the property of another person. The same law creates a damages action for victims. The court found that LGCM obtained services under false pretenses and thereby converted (stole) AOL’s property. The converted property was the cost to AOL of transmitting the spam. The next violation arose under the common law of Virginia. The common law covers ancient, traditional violations of another person’s rights in the absence of any specific statute. For example, trespass on someone else’s property violates the common law, as does breach of contract. Here, trespass to chattels means intentionally using or intermeddling with personal property belonging to another person. Say, I filch your pen or smash your car’s window. That would be trespass to your chattels (the pen or car). Any impairment of the “conditions, quality, or value” of personal property is trespass to chattel under Virginia law. The court observed,