🚀 go-pugleaf

re: can you sue your Internet provider for breach of contract? Allowing
libelous comments?

Thank you very much for providing those two links which hilight a court
case/s where a user was able to sue the provider for wrongly terminating his
service. (Breach of contract, and allowing libelous comments online)

My account was also wrongly suspended a few months ago for one week when
they falsely accused me of posting a post which they later realized was not
mine.

I was humiliated by a scathing letter from their law department and they had
sent this wrongful and libelous comment about myself and this wrongful
threat to several Federal regulating bodies and had done damage to my
reputation and my case.

Again, I thank the poster for giving me this link.

I will most surely follow any legal action that I am afforded if I am forced
to.

There is no way that any Canadian internet user should have their account
terminated if they are not violating any of their providers AUP and are a
fully paid up long term customer.

Here is a brief excerpt from the legal document which is given as a link
below that.


***
> http://www.epic.org/privacy/internet/hall-complaint-798.html
25.  On or about August 5, 1997, EarthLink knowingly and intentionally
terminated
electronic communications service for Mr. Hall and Big Bad Productions,
including:

     (a) all email service to and from the Plaintiffs, that is, EarthLink
refused to transmit email
messages send by third parties to the Plaintiffs at their email address, and
refused to permit Mr. Hall
to access EarthLink's electronic communications service for the purpose of
either transmitting email
to or receiving email from such third parties;

     (b) the ability for Mr. Hall to design and publish a Web page on the
Internet.

     26.  EarthLink took the above described action of terminating the
Plaintiffs' electronic
communications service without providing Mr. Hall or Big Bad Productions
with prior notice of such
termination, the reason for such termination, or the opportunity to contest
such termination.

     27. Beginning on August 6, 1997, and continuing until August 8, 1997,
EarthLink rebuffed
Mr. Hall's repeated attempts by telephone to: (a) learn why EarthLink had
terminated Plaintiffs'
electronic communications service; (b) learn what activity EarthLink accused
him of having done
which resulted in EarthLink's termination of such service; (c) explain to
EarthLink that he did not
abuse, and did not have the technical ability to abuse, his use of
EarthLink's electronic
communications service; and (d) explain that continued interruption of his
email service would have
significant and adverse financial repercussions to himself and to his
business.  The only information
provided to Mr. Hall by EarthLink in support of that company's abrogation of
its subscriber
agreement was that Mr. Hall was accused of making multiple mailings, that
is, using his EarthLink
account to engage in spamming.

     28. On or about August 6, 1997,  Mr. Hall sent, by Express U.S. Mail, a
letter to Harris
Schwartz ("Mr. Schwartz"), head of Abuse Control for EarthLink (the "August
6th letter").  In this
letter, Mr. Hall explicitly informed Mr. Schwartz that he was using his
email for:

          [S]erious business purposes and that [EarthLink's] action of
closing
          my account, refusing even to tell me what I am accused of having
          done, declining to respond to me quickly to my very desperate need
          to stay in touch with the world as we launch my movie, etc. seems
          likely to cause significant damage to the national launch of my
film.

     29. As a consequence of the above described termination of the
Plaintiffs' electronic
communications service, Mr. Hall and Big Bad Productions could not (a)
adequately advertise
Delinquent in time for the Chicago Underground Film Festival; and (b)
respond to inquiries
regarding Delinquent and the L.A. and New York premieres of Delinquent; and
(c) otherwise
adequately market this film

     30. As a direct result of false accusations made by EarthLink against
the Plaintiffs, both
public and private, Mr. Hall was under the compelling belief that an unknown
person was falsely
masquerading on the Internet as Peter Hall, and was, through such
masquerade, damaging the
reputation of Peter Hall, Big Bad Productions, and the film Delinquent; and
that he urgently needed
to clear his name and the name of Big Bad Productions with EarthLink, the
film and media
industries, and the public at large, in order to preserve the financial
viability of his business
enterprises and the film. For these reasons, Mr. Hall could not and did not
attend the Chicago
Underground Film Festival, and instead remained in New York for the purpose
of expending time
and effort to rectify EarthLink's false accusations against him.




**


 "Hoser" <hoser@comic.co> wrote in message
news:Xns92C3D4164A52Ehosercom@205.200.16.73...
> "Bella Anti Matter" <spam@abuse.com> wrote in
> news:CmYz9.10606$b5.49321@news1.mts.net:
>
> > Cost/benefit: if a number of complainants are argueing that one
> > person is being a nuisance and provide documentation to that
> > effect, the provider may cancel that one person's account at their
> > discretion... it is more costly to them to kill all the
> > complainants' accounts than it is to kill simply one account.
> >>
>
> This person had their internet access terminated for no valid reason
> and received a sizeable sum in a judgement against the ISP due to
> problems it caused them in their business dealings and loss of income.
>
> http://www.epic.org/privacy/internet/hall-complaint-798.html
>
> And this fellow received a good sum for libel on usenet.
>
> http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/tech/DailyNews/demon000331_segan.htm
> l