Make sure it is iron clad against spam.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A39137-2002May6&notFound=true

The clause that made this go to court at all was the 2% clause (a definition of spam) which was probably some CEO's genius idea to "clarify the issue".

I doubt many people have this definition of spam. If your TOS simply defines spam as "mass sending of unsolicited email" then you are fine.

Originally posted by Jeremy W.
I doubt many people have this definition of spam. If your TOS simply defines spam as "mass sending of unsolicited email" then you are fine. Can't really say, I guess, without reading the TOS document in question, but from the article alone it sounds like they didn't actually -- or intentionally -- define spam that way either, but that MonsterHut's lawyers managed to exploit that loophole for a while.

The article says that they prohibited spam and defined that as "unsolicited commercial mass e-mailing," but also said that "targeted e-mail marketing" was prohibited if the complaint level was over 2%. So the latest decision was that what MonsterHut was doing was "spam," not "targeted e-mail marketing."

Best thing to do is not host spammers to begin with.

Originally posted by bambenek
Best thing to do is not host spammers to begin with.

How do you know in advance if a new client is going to spam? - especially if they reg a new domain.

Originally posted by Jeremy W.
The clause that made this go to court at all was the 2% clause (a definition of spam) which was probably some CEO's genius idea to "clarify the issue".

This case never should have gotten as far as it did. The 2% clause combined with an utterly clueless judge is what allowed Monsterhut to drag this out for as long as they did.

-Bob

How do you know if someone is spamming??? Simple, they register something like viagradepot.com...

It's the "2% clause" that seems to of gotten them stuck in hot water... If you are 'changing your TOS' over this then I would recommend including the "0% Tolerance" clause. I would have never considered a percentage of complaints in the first place. A NO Spam Policy is the way to go to avoid a "some spam" situation.