When Ken Pugh sued the Elizabeth Dole for Senate campaign last month for sending him spam, it wasn’t money that motivated him.
Even if he wins, according to the North Carolina statute he’s suing under, Pugh stands to net a whopping $80. That's $10 for each of eight e-mails he received.
No, it’s the principle of the thing, says Pugh, a computer consultant from Durham, North Carolina, who is claiming that the unwanted e-mails constituted an illegal computer trespass.
"I would be happy if it was $1, because even at $80 I’m not exactly making up for my time," said Pugh, who filed the suit in small claims court in Rowan County, North Carolina. "What I’d like to do is send a message to someone who may be (the) next senator."
He hopes the suit will alert federal legislators, particularly in his home state, of the need for more effective laws against spam. Pugh himself favors a federal anti-spam law that would include provisions for a national "do-not-send list" of e-mail addresses that are off limits to bulk senders.
Pugh is not alone in calling for tighter regulation of spam. With the scourge of unwanted e-mail on the rise, some unlikely candidates are joining the crusade.
This week, even the Direct Marketing Association (DMA), a group that represents e-mail marketers, came out in support of federal anti-spam legislation. The DMA says that scurrilous spammers are ruining the e-mail marketing business for legitimate operators.
For the time being, however, most anti-spam activists have contented themselves by fighting their battles in state courts. Although a few federal legislators have proposed bills to rein in spam, there is no statute on the books specifically addressing unsolicited e-mail. Meanwhile, 26 states have anti-spam laws in effect.
A number of spam haters are finding limited success fighting unscrupulous e-mail marketers in small claims court. Their focus is more on creating havoc for spammers than on winning large judgments.
"I wouldn’t recommend this as a way to make money, but if you’re interested in learning about the small claims court system, you could try it," said Bennett Haselton, a Washington resident who has filed at least 30 cases against spammers under a 4-year-old state anti-spam law.
Haselton said he's won 10 cases and collected about $2,000 from defendants. It's not a lot of money considering the effort required to pursue the cases, he said.
Nonetheless, Washington is the most popular venue for anti-spam filings in small claims court, says Bruce Miller, another resident of the state who has filed multiple cases against bulk e-mailers.
Miller attributes this popularity in part to the fact that Washington was one of the first states to have an anti-spam law, and along with California, it provides for some of the strictest penalties. The Washington law allows spam victims to recoup up to $500 for messages that are sent without permission or that contain false or misleading information.
But not all judges have been receptive to spam cases. Both Miller and Haselton have had some claims against out-of-state spammers tossed out by judges who said that small claims court was not the proper venue.
In other cases, rewards have been sizeable. This month, a Seattle court ordered an Oregon spammer, Jason Heckel, to pay $98,000 in penalties and legal costs for deluging Washington residents with unwanted messages.
Ben Livingston, another Seattle-area anti-spam activist and author of a website on "Zen and the art of small claims," is pursuing a $150,000 claim against a spammer who sells fake marijuana and smoking products.
Such outsized claims may inspire more activists to haul spammers into court, though Miller believes it's sheer outrage among spam recipients that will truly spur change.
"People need to understand that spam is theft," he said. "When enough people get outraged enough about this kind of theft, then we'll see more movement."
