<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body dir="ltr" bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Dotan Cohen wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:880dece00905070350h301fadabh51413c8a22f285b9@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite"><br>
<pre wrap="">
A representative of the company called me back, she is very concerned
about the incident. It was a third-party advertising agency that sent
the spam and the rep sounds _angry_. As my goal is to fight spam in
Israel, and not to make a quick shekel, I am more than happy to help
her check internally what had happened. It looks like the third party
advertising agency is to blame, and the company rep want to give it to
them hard.
</pre>
</blockquote>
That is fine. Still, you know rule no. 1: spammers lie.<br>
<br>
As far as formal procedure goes, you cannot abide by what she tells
you. Even if what she tells you is the truth as it is, you cannot sue
the spamming agency, as you are not a party to their internal
procedures. As far as I can see, what you can do is one of three things:<br>
<ol>
<li>Drop the whole case, under the assumption that merely by getting
the client angry at their advertising agency you have done enough to
curb further spam.</li>
<li>Ask them to pay you in exchange for all of your collected
evidence (mainly the actual email) and your willingness to be a witness
in case they choose to sue the advertising agency (and they are more
likely to win if they have already paid you, as this is actual out of
pocket damage to them, not a theoretical statutory damage).</li>
<li>Either sue both them and the advertising agency, or just them and
recommend to them that they add the advertising agency as a third party
to the suite. If small claims allows a defendant to add third parties,
this may actually be cheaper for them than option 2. A business is not
allowed to sue in small claims, but if you, as an individual, sue in
small claims, the business may be able to add a third party.</li>
</ol>
The advantage of options 2 and 3 is that it does not require of you to
decide whether the company representative is telling you the truth or
not (rule no. 1 again).<br>
<br>
Again, not a lawyer.<br>
<br>
Shachar<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Shachar Shemesh
Lingnu Open Source Consulting Ltd.
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.lingnu.com">http://www.lingnu.com</a>
</pre>
</body>
</html>