Dozier Internet Law on Damages

Dozier Internet Law is an internet lawyer firm specializing in the law of the web. While many online legal commentators and online “internet lawyers” and “professors” are either biased, have an agenda to pursue, or simply do not understand the technical and business aspects of the web, John W. Dozier Jr. is an entrepreneur and founder of venture backed, award winning businesses, the technical architect of complex e-commerce applications, and a seasoned trial lawyer. The firm represents both sides of disputes and at Dozier Internet Law we are often testing the arguments on both sides. This blog is about damages…damages that could flow from liability resulting from online activities. We give the same advice and guidance to plaintiffs and defendants. At Dozier Internet Law our focus is on balancing the competing and complex issues of doing business online.

 

Dozier Internet Law on $1.8 Million Defamation Judgment

Dozier Internet Law reports that a South Carolina state court has awarded Scott Brandon $1.8 million in damages for defamation arising out of statements published on a Myrtle Beach based blog. Brandon, who is the head of an ad agency, sued in 2008 claiming that Wizeman was the author of Myrtle Beach Insider and that Wizeman had defamed him by publishing a June 2007 post calling him a “failed lawyer” and criticizing one of his ad agency’s campaigns. Dozier Internet Law reports on significant online defamation cases that lead to monetary judgments.

The $1.8 million award came after Circuit Court Judge Diane S. Goodstein assigned a “special referee” to determine damages and the court official, acting in place of the Judge, recommended an award to Brandon of $800,000 in compensatory damages and $1,000,000 in punitive damages.

Dozier Internet Law continues to see judgments in excess of $1 Million for online defamation and Mr. Dozier’s upcoming release date for the “Google Bomb” book detailing this incredibly complex area of law is set for release September 1, 2009.

 

Dozier Internet Law: $12.5 Million Defamation Judgment

Dozier Internet Law reported on its main blog portal that a federal jury in Texas has returned a $12.5 Million Judgment against conspirators involved in launching a “sucks site” against ORIX Capital Markets. The award was for $2.5 Million in compensatory damages and $10 Million in punitive damages.

Dozier Internet Law is a big proponent of using the conspiracy laws to hold all participating in mobosphere attacks responsible legally.

 

Dozier Internet Law on $1.13 Million Web Development Judgment

Dozier Internet Law runs into many web developer/client disputes. Oftentimes the problems are governed by the terms of the contract in place. However, Virginia has passed Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act (UCITA), which requires web designers and developers to design, build and deliver a project “in accordance with industry standards and practices.”

A Virginia jury recently award $1,138,500 to Blue Line Media, Inc. against its web developer, Redmon Group, for violating this standard of care. At Dozier Internet Law we regularly counsel clients on how to establish appropriate performance standards and measurement benchmarks with an eye towards preventing a project failure.

 

Dozier Internet Law: $33.15 Million Judgment for Verizon

Dozier Internet Law reports that a federal court in Northern California has awarded Verizon $50,000 per confusingly similar domain name registered by OnlineNIC, a registrar and the owner of the names. All 663 domain names sued upon were alleged to either be close misspellings of the Verizon name or contain the name itself. Verizon is part of a not for profit coaltion fonded last year that fights cybersquatting.

At Dozier Internet Law this case is helpful for those who push the envelope with domain name ownership. At $50,000 per domain name, which the Judge found to be a reasonable award, the practice of cybersquatting as a business strategy can get pretty costly.

 

Dozier Internet Law: Lawyer Wins Defamation Lawsuit

Dozier Internet Law reports today that a self styled “free speech advocate” has been ordered to pay a Court judgment of $30,000, and the Ontario Court of Appeal added another $10,000 in legal costs in a decision confirming the award. The defendant had earlier reported that the Appeal Court judges were “snapping and confrontational” during his hearing earlier in the week. At trial, the Judge described the defendant’s defamatory attacks against the lawyer as a “steady diet of diatribe and insults, couched in half-truths and omissions…” and rejected a free speech and fair comment defense. The defendant posted on his “free speech” website that he is $17,500 behind in legal bills, and he is trying to raise money to pay his bills, the judgment, and/or appeal again to the Supreme Court. At Dozier Internet Law we are seeing a pronounced trend among the Courts to view claims of “free speech” with increasing skepticism in an apparent response to the realities of the impact of the veritable tidal wave of false and damaging online personal and business attacks.

 

Dozier Internet Law on $700,000 Microsoft Judgment

At Dozier Internet Law we have defended many cases Microsoft has filed over the years. Usually they are settled and Microsoft is reasonable in the process. You generally cannot look to the amount of a judgment to really know what the settlement was since often there is a private settlement far lower in terms of dollars in the agreement. The judgment is entered and can be used by Microsoft to collect if the settlement agreement is violated by the Defendant.

In this case, the amount of judgment was $700,000 and not only did Microsoft rely upon the judgment terms to try and collect, but a criminal charge for contempt of court was brought when Carmelo Cerrelli allegedly continued to sell unlicensed copies of Microsoft software. Dozier Internet Law rarely sees things go this far in post judgment remedies. The Judge found him in criminal contempt of court and fined him an additional $100,000.

 

Dozier Internet Law: $236 Million Judgment

Dozier Internet Law reports regularly on lawsuits and judgments being entered around the country. And the size of judgments keeps getting bigger and bigger. An Iowa federal judge recently entered a judgment after trial for $236 Million against an alleged spammer, including individual owners. And Facebook just took a judgment for $873 Million against an individual who was misusing its networking services.

Both judgments were taken against individual defendants. At Dozier Internet Law we find that many small businesses believe that if they incorporate their business then only the corporation is liable. This is rarely true. For instance, individuals and managers are often liable personally for trademark infringement, copyright infringement, and a host of other violations. And corporation entities are relatively easy to pierce to get to the individual owners given the informal operations of most small online businesses today. Dozier Internet Law suggests that you not assume that a corporation is much protection at all.

 

Dozier Internet Law on Collecting Judgments

Recovering Damages From Thieves, Crooks and Scofflaws

It seems not a day passes that Dozier Internet Law is not asked how to pursue someone who is using a replica website to “compete”, is stealing traffic through trademark infringement, is publishing outrageously false information online, or is undertaking sinister, threatening conduct against a business or its owners. “You can’t get water from a rock” is often a self-serving declaration offered by the crooks when caught. At Dozier Internet Law we have come to appreciate the fact that with some hard digging sometimes there are pockets from which to collect a significant damages award. And the good news is that there are very powerful legal tools to work with that, if understood, can be used to recover a judgment.

First, let’s acknowledge that getting a huge monetary judgment against someone personally is often meaningless unless it can be collected. With very limited space, let me tell you how you can get your money from a judgment:

1) For a Federal Court judgment, you can execute and serve post judgment actions anywhere in the US. For a state court judgment, you can “execute” on a judgment after using a very easy process to register an out of state judgment in the state in which you need to proceed. The defendant’s location may be irrelevent to your ability to collect, particularly when e-commerce is occurring and money is owed to the defendant from third parties like payment processors, Google, and others.
2) Garnishment is the most often used process, and means that 25% of the defendant’s wages as an employee, and 100% of sums owed as a contractor or from any other company, are taken and paid directly to you through the court. This includes bank accounts also, and some retirement accounts. And Paypal account and Adsense account balances also! You can issue many at the same time, and do them again and again until paid.
3) Attachments are used to seize property. If the defendant owns a car, the vehicle can be seized, sold, and the proceeds after paying off the note and expenses are paid to you. It is often used to seize personal property, and can include rings and watches, household items, other personalty, and even domain names and web sites.
4) Judgment liens are placed on real estate records and property owned by the defendant, unless owned as husband and wife in its entirety, and the property cannot be sold without paying you the proceeds. Or, you can file a lien and then file a lawsuit to force the sale of the house if you don’t want to wait.
5) Debtor’s Interrogatories are used when you don’t know what the defendant (“judgment debtor”) owns. You can serve a summons on the defendant every six months and your lawyer will interrogate the defendant under penalty of perjury. If the defendant fails to show it can lead to the defendant being held in jail until the next hearing date, often a month away. This is as close as we get in the US to “debtor’s prison”!

Obviously this is a succinct list of tools that, together with applicable statutory exemptions, vary by state. But you work with the tools you have. Envision yourself in the judgment debtor’s shoes…never knowing when the sheriff will knock on his door to inventory his household effects, never knowing when the money he is owed by a business will disappear into your coffers, never knowing when he will be required to come in and be interrogated, and never knowing when his car will be pulled over and seized. Yes, you do work with the tools you have…and on a rock, you may want to try a chisel.

So whether you are someone faced with a potential claim, or someone trying to decide how to pursue a scofflaw, understand that this is the mindset a high quality, motivated lawyer will have in pursuing the recovery of a judgment. Mr. Dozier was a founder, Vice President, and National Legislative Chairman of the National Association of Retail Collection Attorneys, a trade group of almost 1,000 law firms dedicated to collecting debts. There are plenty of law firms ready, willing and able to make life very difficult for a judgment debtor. It’s not a place you will ever want to be.

 

Dozier Internet Law Reports $35,000 Fake Facebook Profile Award

Dozier Internet Law has learned of an award for $35,000 in the UK against an individual who posted a false profile on Facebook about the plaintiff. The posting was reportedly in retaliation for past business disagreements and the profile included accurate information to lend it credibility, and also set forth libelous, inaccurate, misleading, and damaging information. In reviewing the award, Dozier Internet Law notes that the award was based upon defamation and privacy violations, and given the expansive view of personal jurisdiction in the UK in defamation cases, it is important to note that someone posting defamatory statements in the US could be subject to defending a lawsuit in the UK.

 

Dozier Internet Law: $689,749.75 Court Award for Copyright Abuse

Dozier Internet Law was advised today that a Final Order was entered for Judgment in the sum of $689,749.75 against AXACT (PVT), LTD on behalf of Student Network Resources. The judgment was widely reported as a copyright infringement claim entered for the infringement of term papers. So Dozier Internet Law pulled the pleadings, and reviewed the file. The basis for the judgment was a number of torts relating to copyright and DMCA abuse, not straight copyright infringement. Most important for web based businesses, however, is the continuation of the string of huge court judgments approaching $1 Million being entered against Internet businesses and the scofflaws of the web…and at Dozier Internet Law we represent businesses and professionals targeted with this type of misconduct.