I had servers at Interland until last week when my servers all went down due to a power failure. My servers were down for 36 hours straight.

Anyway, I have moved my customers away from Interland. And, just today, one of my most loyal customers who has been with me since 1999 told me they got a package from www.rackspace.com telling them they realized they experienced downtime recently, and they wanted to know if they would consider switching. The customer said he had never heard of rackspace nor had he contacted them before receiving the package.

Fortunately, this customer is only a shared hosting customer who uses my service because he is non-technical. So, I don't fear losing him. However, www.rackspace.com spend $4 worth of shipping to send him the package.

QUESTIONS
1. How could rackspace have found this shared hosting customer and how did they learn about his downtime. We do not advertise our hosted accounts publicly.

2. I recently began using www.siteuptime.com, a 3rd party service to monitor my servers. Could they have sold this info to rackspace.com? NOTE: I do not use their free service. I pay a monthly fee to www.siteuptime.com .

It is fairly easy to find out what is being hosted where. Rackspace probably heard about the outage, did a search & then sent out the information.

Easy or not, that is really grimey to be doing that to other competitors clients.

To wscreate, if they have a paid membership over at WhoIS.sc, they could do reverse ip lookup and get the 1st 1000 results on the ip address and could've gotten the site from there.

That is just one of the many ways.

Ouch!, this should be in the main webhosting forum

Yeah, thanks guys. I think it was slimey too. Let's hope this never happens to www.rackspace, right. :D

I am not a lawyer, so you want to check with one before listening to me here :)

That said, you might be able to make rackspace think twice before they try to poach your customers in this matter. Send Rackspace a certified letter. You and your customer have a contract -- even if it is just month to month -- right? Yes? Good.

Advise Rackspace that they have just improperly interfered with your relationship with your customer. Tell them that you have a contract with your customer, and that given the state of the industry, they almost certainly knew that anyway. Then tell them that as such, they are interfering with a business relationship, and that if they further contact your customers, you will refer such contact to your counsel for possible legal action for Rackspace's tortious interference.

Note that under normal circumstances involving competition, Rackspace is completely justified (legally) in doing this. Legitimate competition automatically cancels any claims of tortious interference. However, if your customer were to break off the relationship, Rackspace would not serve him as they do not do shared hosting. As such, Rackspace cannot claim protection under legitimate competition! In other words, IMHO non-lawyer opinion, Rackspace has just left themselves open to litigation over tortious interference in your case.

It's just an idea and it may or may not work, and it may or may not be worth your time. But it should make them think twice before you continue, especially if you tell them the above reasoning of WHY they have just opened themselves up to liability.

-- As an aside, in fact, if I were Interland, I WOULD sue them for tortious interference. If they sent this stuff to one of your shared web hosting customers that you know of, you can be sure they sent it to MANY of Interland's customers and customers of customers. For the same reason above, Rackspace is commiting tortious interference in this case (imho); because they have no actual intent to serve many of the customers they are contacting, and there is real damage being done to the relationship between Interland and its customers as a result. Definately tortious interference, imo.

To bring some more light to this subject. The method in which RackSpace aquired "your customer list" isn't very difficult. In fact they thought they were calling YOU, to solict you to come over to them, and didn't realize they were calling a shared customer.

Shortly after Interland's extended downtime. Netcraft sent a blast email to their marketing list, myself, rackspace, and I am sure ev1, and SM are a part of.

This list they were selling provided contact info for servers hosted within Interland's Dialtone facility. But with most lists of this kind they aren't very accurate.

This isn't the first time this happened and it won't be the last.

My experience with rackspace has been good. They seem very ethical in their practices.

That's spam isn't it?

Originally posted by Ravnos
Advise Rackspace that they have just improperly interfered with your relationship with your customer. Tell them that you have a contract with your customer, and that given the state of the industry, they almost certainly knew that anyway. Then tell them that as such, they are interfering with a business relationship, and that if they further contact your customers, you will refer such contact to your counsel for possible legal action for Rackspace's tortious interference.

That's ridiculous, as rackspace will surely tell the OP once they stop laughing long enough to do so.

All rackspace did was solicit the OP's client, hardly "tortious interference" by any stretch of the imagination.

-B

Originally posted by Ravnos


Advise Rackspace that they have just improperly interfered with your relationship with your customer. Tell them that you have a contract with your customer, and that given the state of the industry, they almost certainly knew that anyway. Then tell them that as such, they are interfering with a business relationship, and that if they further contact your customers, you will refer such contact to your counsel for possible legal action for Rackspace's tortious interference.

Since your client information is clearly public information (through whois.sc and then doing a whoislookup), I don't see anything illegal in rackspace contacting your clients. In addition, i don't think there's any substance in sending them that letter.

It is just like a united airlines representative walking up to you and offering you a deal on united airlines when they see you checking at an american airlines checkin counter.

Originally posted by jayglate
Shortly after Interland's extended downtime. Netcraft sent a blast email to their marketing list, myself, rackspace, and I am sure ev1, and SM are a part of.Yeah, this is most probably what happened.

http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=305101

- Chris

For what it's worth.

If the company that produced the list, used whois information,
then you can take their *** to court.

The majority of registrars protect their whois information by including a clause stating that it is illegal to use the whois information to send unsolicited commercial advertising.

Register.com's

"The data in Register.com's WHOIS database is provided to you by
Register.com for information purposes only, that is, to assist you in
obtaining information about or related to a domain name registration
record. Register.com makes this information available "as is," and
does not guarantee its accuracy. By submitting a WHOIS query, you
agree that you will use this data only for lawful purposes and that,
under no circumstances will you use this data to: (1) allow, enable,
or otherwise support the transmission of mass unsolicited, commercial
advertising or solicitations via direct mail, electronic mail, or by
telephone; or (2) enable high volume, automated, electronic processes
that apply to Register.com (or its systems). The compilation,
repackaging, dissemination or other use of this data is expressly
prohibited without the prior written consent of Register.com.
Register.com reserves the right to modify these terms at any time.
By submitting this query, you agree to abide by these terms.
"

BTW Register.Com took Verio to court because Verio was contacting their customers via whois info.

Register.Com Won!

http://www.icann.org/registrars/register.com-verio/order-08dec00.htm

Originally posted by TMX
That's ridiculous, as rackspace will surely tell the OP once they stop laughing long enough to do so.

All rackspace did was solicit the OP's client, hardly "tortious interference" by any stretch of the imagination.

-B

Originally posted by 2fangs
Since your client information is clearly public information (through whois.sc and then doing a whoislookup), I don't see anything illegal in rackspace contacting your clients. In addition, i don't think there's any substance in sending them that letter.

It is just like a united airlines representative walking up to you and offering you a deal on united airlines when they see you checking at an american airlines checkin counter.

Well, none of us are lawyers here, but of the three of us, I bet I'm the only one who's actually read up on what tortious interference is and on the relevant case law.

The fact of the matter is, if you interfere with someone's business relations, you had better make damned sure that your interference is "proper", or you are liable for the interference.

The problem with Rackspace's behavior in this situation is that they "solicited" customers that are not in the same market as Rackspace. In this specific instance, they solicited a shared hosting customer; what do you think would happen if this customer said, "Okay, sell me some shared hosting Rackspace." Rackspace would say, "No, sorry, we don't do that." That's not competition at all, and so is not protected.

In fact, I'll bet you Rackspace actually had discussions in their marketing group about this:

RS #1: "Hmm, we have a list of companies hosting on Interland's dedicated hosting netspace. They had some downtime. Maybe we should solicit these businesses."
RS #2: "Yea, but who should we send them to? We know a lot of these people are only going to be shared hosting customers who will never buy from us anyway..."
RS #1: "Bah, just send to them all. Best case scenario, we get some customers. Worst case scenario, we rub it in with some of Interland's customer's customers and do some damage that way."

And that my friends is tortious interference.

Originally posted by Ravnos
Well, none of us are lawyers here, but of the three of us, I bet I'm the only one who's actually read up on what tortious interference is and on the relevant case law.

Please cite the case law that would back up a claim of tortious interference in this case.

Tortious interference requires the third party, in this case Rackspace, to willingly, knowingly, and improperly interfere with and break a contract between two parties, in this case, the OP's client and Interland (let's forget for a moment that the two don't have a relationship in the first place). We don't have that here. All we have is rackspace presenting a simple solicitation to someone else's customer - not only completely within the law, but also extremely common practice. There is not even a hint of improper interference or attempt to break a contract in evidence in this situation.

-B

Originally posted by datums
For what it's worth.

If the company that produced the list, used whois information,
then you can take their *** to court.

The majority of registrars protect their whois information by including a clause stating that it is illegal to use the whois information to send unsolicited commercial advertising.

Register.com's

"The data in Register.com's WHOIS database is provided to you by
Register.com for information purposes only, that is, to assist you in
obtaining information about or related to a domain name registration
record. Register.com makes this information available "as is," and
does not guarantee its accuracy. By submitting a WHOIS query, you
agree that you will use this data only for lawful purposes and that,
under no circumstances will you use this data to: (1) allow, enable,
or otherwise support the transmission of mass unsolicited, commercial
advertising or solicitations via direct mail, electronic mail, or by
telephone; or (2) enable high volume, automated, electronic processes
that apply to Register.com (or its systems). The compilation,
repackaging, dissemination or other use of this data is expressly
prohibited without the prior written consent of Register.com.
Register.com reserves the right to modify these terms at any time.
By submitting this query, you agree to abide by these terms.
"

BTW Register.Com took Verio to court because Verio was contacting their customers via whois info.

Register.Com Won!

http://www.icann.org/registrars/register.com-verio/order-08dec00.htm

However, you need to know that the terms and conditions varies between each registrar. For example, the Network Solutions disclaimer reads



NOTICE AND TERMS OF USE: You are not authorized to access or query our WHOISdatabase through the use of high-volume, automated, electronic processes. TheData in Network Solutions' WHOIS database is provided by Network Solutions for informationpurposes only, and to assist persons in obtaining information about or relatedto a domain name registration record. Network Solutions does not guarantee its accuracy.By submitting a WHOIS query, you agree to abide by the following terms of use:You agree that you may use this Data only for lawful purposes and that under nocircumstances will you use this Data to: (1) allow, enable, or otherwise supportthe transmission of mass unsolicited, commercial advertising or solicitationsvia e-mail, telephone, or facsimile; or (2) enable high volume, automated,electronic processes that apply to Network Solutions (or its computer systems). Thecompilation, repackaging, dissemination or other use of this Data is expresslyprohibited without the prior written consent of Network Solutions. You agree not to usehigh-volume, automated, electronic processes to access or query the WHOISdatabase. Network Solutions reserves the right to terminate your access to the WHOISdatabase in its sole discretion, including without limitation, for excessivequerying of the WHOIS database or for failure to otherwise abide by this policy.Network Solutions reserves the right to modify these terms at any time.



Clearly in clause #1 of the NS whois disclaimer, it does not exclude "direct mailing" as compared with the register.com disclaimer. Hence, rackspace, if it used NS would not be breaching any of the terms since they sent the package through mail.

Fortunately, this customer is only a shared hosting customer who uses my service because he is non-technical. So, I don't fear losing him. However, www.rackspace.com spend $4 worth of shipping to send him the package.

Originally posted by datums

BTW Register.Com took Verio to court because Verio was contacting their customers via whois info.

Register.Com Won!

http://www.icann.org/registrars/register.com-verio/order-08dec00.htm

In addition, WSCreate would not be able to take Rackspace to court on that basis since WSCreate isn't party to any contract involving the purported breach of the whois terms. Only registser.com would be able to take RS to court on THAT basis.

Originally posted by jayglate
To bring some more light to this subject. The method in which RackSpace aquired "your customer list" isn't very difficult. In fact they thought they were calling YOU, to solict you to come over to them, and didn't realize they were calling a shared customer.

Shortly after Interland's extended downtime. Netcraft sent a blast email to their marketing list, myself, rackspace, and I am sure ev1, and SM are a part of.

This list they were selling provided contact info for servers hosted within Interland's Dialtone facility. But with most lists of this kind they aren't very accurate.

This isn't the first time this happened and it won't be the last.

Thanks for the heads up, time to go signup on that mailing list.

Each Registrar has their own whois server.

For example any of the clients that were contacted who registered their domain via register.com would have been protected.

If you use network solutions to obtain whois info for a domain registered via register.com network solutions will query the register.com whois servers.


BTW the Network Solutions clause states
"other use of this Data is expresslyprohibited without the prior written consent of Network Solutions"

which covers what rackshack might have done.


Again unless you have more info on how the list was obtain you really don't know who to blame here.

I have seen this type of sneaky business practice happen in other sectors.

Originally posted by TMX
Tortious interference requires the third party, in this case Rackspace, to willingly, knowingly, and improperly interfere with and break a contract between two parties

This is true, but only in the case of tortious interference with a contract, a subset of interference with prospective economic advantage. Part of the reason I suggested the initial letter was to make Rackspace aware of the contract; further interference would not be able to use that as a defense.

Originally posted by TMX
Please cite the case law that would back up a claim of tortious interference in this case.

We'll go for the superset of the interference with contract, interference with prospective economic advantage. It's easier to prove.

(1) an economic relationship between [the plaintiff and some third person] containing the probability of future economic benefit to the [plaintiff], (2) knowledge by the defendant of the existence of the relationship, (3) intentional acts on the part of the defendant designed to disrupt the relationship, (4) actual disruption of the relationship, [and] (5) damages to the plaintiff proximately caused by the acts of the defendant.' (Buckaloo v. Johnson (1975) 14 Cal.3d 815, 827.)

Here are the claims I would make in a lawsuit:

1. Rackspace sent letters referencing Interland's downtime to an unspecified number of individuals and/or companies.
-- Established by testimony of wscreate's customer, and the letter. Further establishment in discovery; Rackspace almost certainly specifically targeted customers on Interland's netblocks.
2. Rackspace knew that a large fraction of the customers in Interland's dedicated server space resold shared web hosting accounts.
-- This can be established in discovery.
3. Rackspace knew that on their list of potential recipients, some of these would be customers buying shared web hosting from interland's customers.
-- This can be established in discovery.
4. Rackspace knew, or should have known, that sending the letters they sent to the people in #3 would interfere with the business relationships between the individuals in groups #2 and #3.
-- Establishable in discovery, or failing that, to be decided by jury.
5. Rackspace never had any intention of competing for the customers in #3.
-- Fact. Establishable by Rackspace's product line, marketing, etc.
6. Absent Rackspace's intention to serve the customers in #3, the interference in said customer's relationships with their provider is improper.

So, to look at Buckaloo v. Johnson's requirements:

1. Established.
2. Established upon discovery of #2 and #3.
3. Established in #1, to be decided by jury on claim #5.
4. Currently unestablished; did anyone lose any customers?
5. Currenty unestablished; will be upon determining whether any customers were lost.

The problem with the "we were competing" defense is that my claims above, if borne out by discovery, shred it completely. Rackspace knew that some of the recipients would not be potential customers. Rackspace knew that the result of mailing them would be to cause damage to the relationships between Interland's customers and Interland's customer's customers. Rackspace knew that this damage would _also_ cause damage to the relationships between Interland and it's customers. As such, there is a cause of action for both Interland and Interland's customers for interference with a prospective economic advantage.

Assuming damages do occur, the above claims should be sufficient to get a lawsuit past the judge (who decides matters of law) to the jury (who decides the facts).

Okay, so I've shown you why (in my admitted non-lawyer opinion) Rackspace has left itself vulnerable to lawsuits over interference with prospective economic advantage should damage occur. It's shallow, but it's there. Now it's your turn to show me why not.

Okay, so I've shown you why (in my admitted non-lawyer opinion) Rackspace has left itself vulnerable to lawsuits over interference with prospective economic advantage should damage occur. It's shallow, but it's there. Now it's your turn to show me why not.

Your quite sure you aren't an attorney? :eek:

You've pretty solidly nailed it on the head. Since in this scenario Rackspace would be soliciting business in a market that they do not operate in, they can't claim "fair competition" as a defense.

It could and most probably would be viewed by a court at Tortious Inference, assuming all facts presented here are correct.


$.02

I'm not sure exactly, but I believe what RackSpace has done is what you would call "Corporate Trespassing" which could be grounds for a lawsuit. A good place to find out if RackSpace has done anything illegally or could be grounds for a lawsuit is the Electronic Frontier Foundation. If you ask them a question they may advise you on the issue.

Originally posted by Ravnos
Okay, so I've shown you why (in my admitted non-lawyer opinion) Rackspace has left itself vulnerable to lawsuits over interference with prospective economic advantage should damage occur. It's shallow, but it's there. Now it's your turn to show me why not.

Very nicely done, I must admit.

Right off the top I see at least a couple of places where, IMO, your argument would fail, but give me a day and a pot of coffee to read Buckaloo v. Johnson before I get back to you.

-B

I would like to point out that I am not saying that you are assured a win in court if you do file.

The problem with this theory that I see, more than anything else, is researching and proving damages. So far, wscreate has not actually lost a customer (that we know of) to this campaign. Nor has Interland, to our knowledge. You would actually have to interview the customers that Interland/wscreate has lost one by one and get why they changed from the horses mouth. I think it far more likely that the customer will end up saying, "Yea, I recieved that. Yea, it didn't make me feel any better. But Interland fscked up, and that's why we moved."

That said, you could probably mount enough of a threat that you can make Rackspace say, "Hmm, it really isn't worth it to market in this way. It's too dangerous." At the very least, you can probably mount enough of a threat that Rackspace would have to review the situation internally and make sure that they are not doing anything improper. That would take time.

The key is, this kind of marketing is very time-sensative. People's irritation with downtime wanes over time, and as this irritation wanes, the hassle of moving the site will often grow greater than the remembered pain of the downtime. If you can force Rackspace to delay follow-up communication (by any means), the effectiveness of this tactic would be much reduced. And that would be the goal of this.

Bah, can only edit posts for 15 minutes after the post! Yuck.

The point here is, imagine you're management at Rackspace. You receive a letter roughly (and more lawyerly) outlining the above legal theory. Even if you think it's wrong-headed, do you:

A. Laugh and continue what you're doing.
B. Check with the lawyers.

I don't know about you, but I check with the lawyers, and in the meantime, I tell my sales/marketing people to make a reasonable effort to ensure that the people we're soliciting while referencing the downtime are people who will actually purchase what we're selling.

Until legal has vetted it, it's just not worth the risk to the company -- or to your own job.

"Nature of the Tort of Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage

The elements of that tort of are: '(1) an economic relationship between [the plaintiff and some third person] containing the probability of future economic benefit to the [plaintiff], (2) knowledge by the defendant of the existence of the relationship, (3) intentional acts on the part of the defendant designed to disrupt the relationship, (4) actual disruption of the relationship, [and] (5) damages to the plaintiff proximately caused by the acts of the defendant.' (Buckaloo v. Johnson (1975) 14 Cal.3d 815, 827.)"

Originally posted by Ravnos
So, to look at Buckaloo v. Johnson's requirements:

1. Established.
Agreed.
2. Established upon discovery of #2 and #3.
We do not know that either #2 or #3 would be established in discovery. However, I will cede the point because I don't believe it's relevant at the moment
3. Established in #1, to be decided by jury on claim #5.
This is where your argument is starting to go wrong, IMO. I would argue that Rackspace's solicitation was made with the primary intent of gaining clients, not interfering with an existing business relationship. Although it can be argued that the very act of attempting to gain clients from another company is in and of itself an attempt at interfering with an existing business relationship, that act alone would not be enough to sustain your claims. I base that opinion on the following, taken from http://www.lectlaw.com/def/i084.htm


" It is not enough that the actor intended to perform the acts which caused the result -- he or she must have intended to cause the result itself. Although these views were expressed in the context of the tort of inducing breach of contract, the expansion of that tort into the broader wrongs of interfering with contractual relations or prospective economic advantage has not altered the requirement that the defendant act with culpable intent. (Seaman's Direct Buying Service, Inc. v. Standard Oil Co., supra, 36 Cal.3d at 766.) '[T]o prevail on a cause of action for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, plaintiff must plead and prove 'intentional acts on the part of the defendant designed to disrupt the relationship.' ' (Ibid., quoting from Buckaloo v. Johnson, supra, 14 Cal.3d at 827.)"


"Culpable intent". This says to me that Rackspace's intent would have had to be malicious, and we have no evidence of that.

The problem with the "we were competing" defense is that my claims above, if borne out by discovery, shred it completely. Rackspace knew that some of the recipients would not be potential customers.
I don't know that any sort of "we were competing" defense would be necessary, but let's assume for the sake of argument that it would - I think it could easily be argued and demonstrated that the shared hosting and dedicated server markets are closely related, and that the move from a shared hosting environment to a dedicated server is a very common occurance and natural progression in our industry, thereby establishing the OP's shared hosting clients as legitimate targets for Rackspace's advertising.

Rackspace knew that the result of mailing them would be to cause damage to the relationships between Interland's customers and Interland's customer's customers. Rackspace knew that this damage would _also_ cause damage to the relationships between Interland and it's customers. As such, there is a cause of action for both Interland and Interland's customers for interference with a prospective economic advantage.
Again, this is an assumption in an area that requires proof. You would have to not only prove that Rackspace knew they were going to damage the relationship between Interland, their customers, and their customer's customers, but you would have to prove that was their primary intent. I simply do not think there is anything here, nor would there be anything in discovery, that would allow you to do that. Therein lies the problem with this whole thing, and why my opinion remains unchanged.

I think that in this scenario, if the customer were to leave Interland/Interland's customer for Rackspace as a result of Rackspace's solicitation, and did so upon expiration of an existing contract, there would be no legal consequences to be borne by anyone involved. However, if the client were to break an existing contract due to Rackspace's solicitation, I believe the client and the client alone would be legally liable. I think that in order to even begin to look at Rackspace as a potential litigant in our scenario would require Rackspace to involve themselves to a considerably greater degree than they have up to this point.

Assuming damages do occur, the above claims should be sufficient to get a lawsuit past the judge (who decides matters of law) to the jury (who decides the facts).

I don't think it would make it past the judge. Not like this.

<end of my admittedly non-lawyer opinion>

-B

(some editing in below quotes)

Originally posted by TMX
This is where your argument is starting to go wrong, IMO. I would argue that Rackspace's solicitation was made with the primary intent of gaining clients, not interfering with an existing business relationship. Although it can be argued that the very act of attempting to gain clients from another company is in and of itself an attempt at interfering with an existing business relationship, that act alone would not be enough to sustain your claims. (...)

"Culpable intent". This says to me that Rackspace's intent would have had to be malicious, and we have no evidence of that.


The act of attempting to gain clients is not at question here; that is clearly protected behavior. The question is whether or not the knowledge that Rackspace would also be interfering improperly is enough to establish intent.

Like I said, I expect that Rackspace internally had a discussion that went:

RS #1: Well, which of these do we send to? We know most of these addresses are going to be shared hosting customers that are customer's of Interland's customers.
RS #2: Heck, send it to them all. In the worst case scenario, we make Interland look bad.

Assuming you can get something like that in discovery, is that intent? I think it is.

Originally posted by TMX
Again, this is an assumption in an area that requires proof. You would have to not only prove that Rackspace knew they were going to damage the relationship between Interland, their customers, and their customer's customers, but you would have to prove that was their primary intent. I simply do not think there is anything here, nor would there be anything in discovery, that would allow you to do that. Therein lies the problem with this whole thing, and why my opinion remains unchanged.

Well, first, you don't have to prove that the intent is primary, only that it was there (by my reading of Buckaloo v Johnson). Your primary intent may be to get customers, but if you had a secondary intent that your actions would also interfere, well, that might be enough.

As far finding or not finding anything in discovery, well, there's little point arguing what you would or would not find. You have to actually do discovery to know one way or the other.

That said, I will say that I still expect the conversation above occured. It is the logical behavior of a competent person in charge of a marketing campaign; one of the first questions you're going to ask yourself as a marketer is, "Am I targeting the right people?" So they ask; and someone responds, "Don't worry about that, it will have a secondary effect of damaging Interland in general."

As far as whether this is outlandish or not, I've personally seen it happen before, so to me it is not so outlandish.

(So there is no confusion here, the involved parties were completely different -- I am not saying I have seen it happen at Rackspace before or anything like that)

Originally posted by TMX
I think that in this scenario, if the customer were to leave Interland/Interland's customer for Rackspace as a result of Rackspace's solicitation, and did so upon expiration of an existing contract, there would be no legal consequences to be borne by anyone involved.

Well, there is no doubt that if the customer left for Rackspace and Rackspace allowed them to sight up that there would be no liability on Rackspace's part -- this would be legitimate competition. The question is, what if a customer like wscreate's left him because of Rackspace's solicitation, went to Rackspace and said, "Ok, give me shared", and Rackspace refused. I still would argue that there is potential for liability in that case.

well when you get right down to it. who here really HAS the money to take rackspace to court?

personally i don't and even if i did, i wouldn't over a $10/mo account.

what they did is wrong. un-ethical and just bad rep in my opinion but taking action against these big monsters is just not my piece of cake...

although i did find this thread veryy informing