The Attorney General of the State of Washington recently announced the filing of another lawsuit against Spammers, this time against two Minnesota men. The press release states in part; “Attorney General Christine Gregoire today filed a lawsuit against two Minnesota men whose e-mail pitches for debt consolidation services could mislead some people to think their credit ratings are at risk.”

This is the third lawsuit filed against a spammer. The first, against Jason Heckel, is scheduled for trial in September of this year. This case was the “test case” and is the case that made it’s way to the Washington State Supreme Court where the law was upheld as constitutional.

The law was passed in March of 1998. Successful prosecutions to date by the Attorney General under this statute currently number precisely zero. (One was settled out of court.) Successful lawsuits by private individuals are a small handful, although the number is rising.

The challenges of filing a lawsuit as an individual or as a private company are daunting. More daunting is the appearance of complete chaos within the court system. Depending on what court and what judge you are assigned within that court determines whether you can even try the case. There have been several diametrically opposed rulings on the validity of parts of the law and on their application.

A case under the law may or may not be brought to trial in small claims court. A case under the law may or may not be brought against out-of-state spammers. A case may or may not be permitted which seeks monetary “damages” under the law. Every result has already been achieved in courts in King and Kitsap Counties. It is maddening that such a wild hodge-podge of results can occur under nearly identical circumstances. At times it seems like tilting at windmills.

Despite the obstacles, persistent anti-spammers have won several cases. The final and perhaps most difficult step is collecting. Especially if a default judgment is reached, the likelihood of actually receiving a settlement is exceedingly small. At the very least, however, the criminal may have been given indigestion, and in a few cases, a genuine hit to the wallet.

The battle is not always to the strongest, nor the race always to the swift, but that is the way to bet. At best, a few of the “weakest” scavengers have been picked off from the fringes of the herd. What is needed now are professional “hunters” to go after the rest of the scavengers who have avoided detection or prosecution to date. While it is encouraging to see the Washington State Attorney General take on their third case, it is extremely disappointing that the results have been so meager, to date.

While for many spam is at worst an annoyance, for many others (especially businesses) spam is becoming a system killer that is clogging email boxes, crashing servers, and creating havoc on the network. The cost to small and mid-size businesses can easily run to tens of thousands of dollars per year, in dealing with what is essentially someone else’s garbage. It is not a “victimless” crime, nor is it a minor crime. No crime that exceeds a total cost of $10 billion a year is “small.”

The results of the Heckel trial will have an impact on how well laws can deal with this “white collar” type of crime that seems so tiny and insignificant a problem. Ask yourself this. If the Internet is brought to it’s knees in the next six months, and the incredible advantages the Internet brings to individuals and businesses are no longer available, what will be the cost to society? What will it cost you? The answer is, a huge cost to society, and to you, a cost far larger than you know. It is important that this problem be solved, and the Washington State law is an important tool in the solving. Let’s hope the Heckel case proves it a tool worth having in the toolbox.