Bill is absolutely correct. The spammers lost their case because they were demonstrably spammers. We’ve had accidental black hole cases with *US* providers that removed the block once they received a C&D. If they don’t have iron clad proof in hand. (More than just a few complaints and no traffic analysis), it’s just the least risky response. That doesn’t work well with overseas providers, though, because they’re essentially immune to U.S. litigation unless the plaintiff has deep pockets. -mel On Apr 22, 2024, at 5:21 PM, William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote: On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 5:07 PM John R. Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote: a complaint would have to show that the blocking was malicious rather than merited or accidental. In this case it seems probably accidental, but for all I know there might have been bad traffic to merit a block. Hi John, I'll try not to belabor it, but accidental that isn't corrected upon formal legal notification becomes negligent and negligent has more or less the same legal status as malicious. The spammers lost because the networks published a terms of use document that the spammers unambiguously violated. Even though it interfered with the spammer's business, the block was merited so the preponderance of the evidence fell in favor of the service provider. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin bill@herrin.us https://bill.herrin.us/