A spammer may be about to sue me.

February 24, 2006 2:33 PM

I'm wondering if writing "dreamhomesolution4u.com is marketed heavily by using spam." on a personal site should be enough to land me in trouble.

I got some postal mail with a fairly convincing offer to buy my house, so I typed the phone number into a search engine and realized it was a real estate team sending out unsolicited email.

It turns out they're fairly well-known; there was a local news story covering this couple's shady yet very lucrative approach to real estate.

I linked them to the term "spam" on a little relational database I run (self link) and now I've been informed they've contacted their attorney about the post.

I don't see how my single (accurate) line "dreamhomesolution4u.com is marketed heavily by using spam." could get me in much trouble, but I'm curious to know if anyone strongly disagrees and thinks I should just take it down.

I'm not looking for a fight, but I'm not taking it down unless I could actually get in trouble for it.

posted by jragon to law & government (14 comments total)

Truth is a defense to accusations of libel, but that doesn't mean they won't find a lawyer willing to sue you or issue a DMCA takedown notice.
posted by exogenous at 2:36 PM on February 24, 2006

It is theoretically possible that they could sue you for libel. Of course, if it's true that they're marketed heavily by using spam, then there's no reason to expect you'd lose. Not sure how a countersuit would work, but it's possible you could force 'em to pay the costs of you defending yourself.

So, assuming your statement is defensible, there could be some hassle if they push, but it doesn't seem like you'd actually be punished or anything for it.
posted by kafziel at 2:37 PM on February 24, 2006

Wait, what did you receive, postal mail or e-mail?
posted by kindall at 2:38 PM on February 24, 2006

"...realized it was a real estate team sending out unsolicited email."

My mistake. Postal mail. No email until the legal notice.
posted by jragon at 2:40 PM on February 24, 2006

Ok, thanks for your help. I'm just going to directly quote the local news story then. "Jeff and Tami Surridge buy and sell houses for a living. They send out unsolicited letters to homeowners, but not just any homeowner." and "They target people in financial trouble, landlords and those with rundown homes."
posted by jragon at 2:44 PM on February 24, 2006

So it sounds like they don't use spam to market, they use standard junk mail channels and perhaps some arguably deceptive marketing in that mail.

I think your truth claim is unfounded (they didn't spam you, using the generic meaning of spam) and you probably have to comply unless you feel like fighting.
posted by mathowie at 2:45 PM on February 24, 2006

No answers for you beyond what's been posted already, but I'll join you in solidarity and post your phrase on my website =p
posted by nomisxid at 3:28 PM on February 24, 2006

"dreamhomesolution4u.com is marketed heavily by using spam."

This doesn't seem accurate given the additional information in your post. You could say that they use deceptive and shady direct mail marketing practices and be alot closer to the truth.
posted by fenriq at 3:36 PM on February 24, 2006

Interesting point, fenriq. I thought the fact that spam equals unsolicited was the slam dunk here, and that they shady advertising angle would be the harder part to prove.

Anyway, I modified the post to simply quote the King5 story on them.
posted by jragon at 4:11 PM on February 24, 2006

mathowie wrote "I think your truth claim is unfounded (they didn't spam you, using the generic meaning of spam) and you probably have to comply unless you feel like fighting."

IANL, but I suspect the argument could be made that spam has evolved into a generic term for unsolicited communications in any medium. "Spam" as a term only came into being through common usage, and I think there's plenty of evidence that the expanded meaning has also become common. Take this PCWorld article for example... "Spam Spreads to Paper." Though they include the following passage about the technicality, they acknowledge that recipients could reasonably consider unsolicited paper mail to be spam and establish it as a generic synonym for "junk mail."

But what about that spam issue? Technically Zairmail isn't spamming, since the mail is sent via the U.S. Postal Service. Still, many people could regard it as another form of spam or junk mail.
posted by VulcanMike at 4:59 PM on February 24, 2006

Not only do I think the distinction between spam and junk-mail is worthwhile, but I'd like to make an effort to preserve it.

The difference is that, while junk snail-mail is paid for by the sender, the decentralized nature of email means it costs the recipients a lot more than the senders, both in theoretical costs for processing delivery, and in more concrete costs like bandwidth.

I work for a small company, maybe 250 employees in four countries. Tuesday morning, our mail servers had already dealt with over 6gb of spam.
posted by CrayDrygu at 7:44 PM on February 24, 2006

Just preface it with "I think" - then it's your opinion.

Tell their lawyers to F.O.A.D.
posted by drstein at 9:24 PM on February 24, 2006

Why don't you explain how wrong you were, how you thought unsolicited mail = spam, but what you really got was a shady attempt at buying your house people whom you personally strongly disagree with in terms of their business strategy. Then document the heck out of what others have said.

Anyway, I always thought that spam = BULK unsolicited mail.
posted by maxpower at 6:45 AM on February 25, 2006

Honestly, they won't do shit.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 7:24 AM on February 25, 2006