Linhardt Sues Anti-Spammers…Again

Dave Linhardt sure is spending a lot of time with lawyers these days.

The CEO of e-mail marketing firm e360 Insight who has sued Spamhaus, is suing Comcast, and who is being sued by a lawyer in Ohio and an anti-spammer in California, has now filed suit against some anti-spammers on discussion group Nanae—for the third time.

All this legal action also begs the question: Where is he getting the money to fight these battles? Linhardt isn’t saying.

In a complaint made at U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, he accuses anti-spam activists Mark Ferguson, Kelly Chien, and Susan Wilson, a.k.a. Susan Gunn, of making statements on Nanae that caused his outbound e-mail to be blacklisted by anti-spam outfit Spamhaus and, as a result, blocked from reaching recipients.

The complaint alleges e360 Insight lost business as a result of their comments and accuses all three of “tortious interference” with its business.

It also accuses Ferguson and Wilson of defamation. e360 is seeking an injunction and damages of at least $75,000.

This is the third time Linhardt has sued a group of anti-spammers claiming they caused his e-mail to be blocked by calling him a spammer on Nanae.

He filed a suit in federal court last year against a larger group of individuals that included Ferguson, Wilson and Chien.

Linhardt inexplicably dropped that action in May and had it moved to state court. He then dropped it in state court in September and declined to explain why.

Anti-spammer Ferguson said in an e-mail exchange with this newsletter that Linhardt filed his first suit after Ferguson’s lawyers sent Linhardt a letter threatening to sue him for allegedly spamming. None of the defendants were served with Linhardt’s first complaint, Ferguson noted.

“Then I telephoned Dave on his cell phone and asked if he wished to settle out of court for the harassment and spam,” Ferguson wrote. “He whined about not having the money so I told him I would have to refer it to my attorneys.”

“They served Linhardt with a copy of the complaint…and settlement agreement. The expiration date on the settlement agreement was around Jan. 22, 2007 and he filed suit Jan. 18, 2007,” Ferguson added.

“Do you see a pattern to avoid being sued here?”

Ferguson also said that on the day he was to prove that Linhardt fabricated opt-in records, Linhardt dropped his second suit.

“My current IP became my current IP on Jan. 12, 2007. Dave says I signed up on Nov. 29, 2006 from my current IP address,” Ferguson said.

“Dave also made the claim I signed up at 123freetravel.com. A site I had never heard of prior to his post March 4, 2007.”

Anti-spammer Wilson declined comment through a third party on advice from her lawyer. An e-mail to Chien was not answered.

Linhardt also declined comment.

The ongoing battle between Linhardt and seemingly the whole anti-spam world began when Linhardt sued Spamhaus in 2006. He won an $11.7 million default judgment against the anti-spam blacklister when representatives failed to show up to defend themselves in court, claiming the U.S. legal system had no jurisdiction over them.

Spamhaus then changed its no-show strategy and appealed the judgment. A federal appeals court vacated the decision in September, and sent it back to district court to recalculate damages.

Last week Linhardt sued Comcast, claiming the access provider was wrongly blocking his company’s e-mail as spam. He’s asking for more than $12 million in compensatory damages and $9 million in punitive damages.

Meanwhile, Ohio attorney John “Jack” Ferron recently filed a complaint against Linhardt, claiming e360 sent Ferron hundreds of e-mails that constituted false advertising.

Still pending is a lawsuit Nanae member Bill Silverstein filed against Linhardt in California last year in response to Linhardt’s legal action against his colleagues.

Separately, Linhardt took issue with a passage in last week’s article on his suit against Comcast. The passage in question said while e360 claimed Return Path certified it as a non-spammer, Return Path’s George Bilbrey denied the assertion.

Linhardt said the passage failed to tell the whole story and asked for an opportunity to respond. Click here for his letter unedited.