On Apr 26, 2019, at 11:57 AM, Mel Beckman <mel@beckman.org> wrote:
Anne,
As a lawyer, I’m sure you realize those overly broad policies are unenforceable on their face. Phrases such as “resell...directly or indirectly” could just as easily be interpreted to mean you can’t perform paid consulting work by email over a residential link — something patently ridiculous.
Can you cite any case law where these restrictions have been enforced? I believe if a case every cane to court, the defense would have an excellent argument that the plain meaning of these restrictions is to prevent others from buying direct Internet access from another communications channel (e.g., WiFi) from the residence, not passing data through the residence.
Mel, we will have to agree to disagree. I know that if I were representing any of these providers, I know what arguments I'd make, and we would almost certainly win. Courts don't look kindly on breach of contract (nor on inducing breach of contract, as Packetstream is), and the ToSs very clearly state you cannot *resell* your residential bandwidth, which is precisely what is going on here (there is no legal theory of which I am aware under which that could be interpreted to mean "can’t perform paid consulting work by email over a residential link", novel though your theory is. Performing paid consulting work is *not* 'reselling bandwidth"). Anne Attorney at Law GDPR, CCPA (CA) & CCDPA (CO) Compliance Consultant Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam law) Legislative Consultant CEO/President, Institute for Social Internet Public Policy Board of Directors, Denver Internet Exchange Board of Directors, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop Legal Counsel: The CyberGreen Institute Former Counsel: Mail Abuse Prevention System (MAPS California Bar Association Cal. Bar Cyberspace Law Committee Colorado Cyber Committee Ret. Professor of Law, Lincoln Law School of San Jose