Marketing’s Weekly Dose of the Truth

Ken Magill

About Us

Special Offer to Enraged Anti-Spammers

6/10/14
 
By Ken Magill
 
There is little that irritates me more than anti-spammers who sue big-brands for cash settlements.
 
Yes, some big brands spam. And yes, it’s wrong.
 
But we already have perfectly viable protections against such sloppy emailers: spam filters, blocklists and the report-spam button.
 
Individual anti-spam lawsuits accomplish nothing positive.
 
Moreover, they cost us all. 
 
The brain-dead simple concept that seems to be lost on anti-spammers who sue big brands and those who cheer them on is that when big brands settle, they don’t pay. Their customers do.
 
The settlement simply gets worked into the cost of doing business. Also, judges are paid by tax dollars. So taxpayers foot the bill for anti-spammer lawsuit shenanigans, as well.
 
So when I first read of Sky news reporter Roddy Mansfield getting an anti-spam settlement out of Brit retailer John Lewis, I thought: “That guy just cost a bunch of innocent bystanders money and some idiots are cheering him on.”
 
Of course, the costs will be imperceptible on an individual level, but they exist and on principal are disgusting.
 
If you can serve a company with court papers and get a settlement, they are not the problem. Suing a big brand for unsolicited email is akin to calling the police because someone drove by your home with the music blaring. Yes it’s a nuisance, but not one worth diverting public resources against.
 
So when individual anti-spammers sue, they are costing others money, doing nothing to solve what’s left of the problem—one that has largely been solved by technology—and wasting public resources on a trivial issue. All so they can do nothing more than line their pockets and feel good about themselves.
 
As Magill Report readers should all be aware by now, Canada’s stupidest-in-the-history-of-ever anti-spam law goes into effect on July 1.
 
It requires express or implied permission and gives individuals the right to sue. Canada has a loser-pays provision making individual lawsuits less likely, but not out of the realm of possibility.
 
My guess is someone will sue some brand under Canada’s new law and that someone will get a settlement while needlessly and uselessly costing others in the process.
 
I have an offer for that person.
 
To the first person who intends to bring a lawsuit under Canada’s anti-spam law, I have set up an email address for you.
 
It is currently pristine. 
 
All you have to do is start using it in your online commercial transactions. Feed it to any and every commercial email list you can find. Some company with deep pockets is bound to screw up.
 
Then you sue. By using the address I give you, the resulting court papers will read with more accuracy than they otherwise could have.
 
The address is DoucheBagWeenyBoy@Outlook.com. Seriously. It’s a real address. I have the password and will be happy to hand it over to the right person.
 
Think about it: The court papers will say things like: “From July 2014 to July 2015 [Big Brand] sent approximately 15 unsolicited commercial electronic messages [CEMs] to DoucheBagWeenyBoy@Outlook.com in violation of Canada’s Anti-Spam Legislation [CASL].”
 
See how that works? While accurately stating the actions of the defendant, the statement also more accurately paints a picture of you.
 
Suing using DoucheBagWeenyBoy@Outlook.com would also make for some damn fine headlines.
 
Just to prove the address is real, here is a screen shot of the inbox:
 
 
See how pristine it is? Notice in the upper right corner, your first name is DoucheBag and your last name is WeenyBoy.
 
How will I know if you’re the right person to whom to give the address? 
 
Well, DoucheBag—can I call you DoucheBag?—anti-spammers who use the courts as rage therapy often spit out phrases such as “I shouldn’t have to un-tick a box!” while failing to see the irony in making such a statement as they make the time and effort to write demand letters and/or start legal proceedings.
 
Trust me. I’ve been at this longer than I care to admit. If you’re truly worthy of the name DoucheBag WeenyBoy, I’ll know it.
 
PS. I didn’t reserve DoucheBagWeenyGirl@outlook.com because anti-spam lawsuit weenies always seem to be guys. But my guess is DoucheBagWeenyGirl@outlook.com is available if we need it. 
 
Comments

Show: Newest | Oldest

Post a Comment
Your Name:
Subject:
Comments:
Verification:
Please type the letters in the image above

Terms: Feel free to be as big a jerk as you want, but don't attack anyone other than me personally. And don't criticize people or companies other than me anonymously. Got something crappy to say? Say it under your real name. Anonymous potshots and personal attacks aimed at me, however, are fine.

Xverify