the cases

US v. Cyberheat

Corporations kicked off on a high (or low) note:
Defendant is an Arizona corporation, Cyberheat, Inc., in the business of offering sexually explicit websites for consenting adults to view by subscription on the Internet. Cyberheat utilizes a promotional program called TopBucks in which affiliates enter into a contract arrangement with Cyberheat to promote its websites. The affiliate is compensated by Defendant for each successful contact with a Cyberheat website.

In a nutshell, Plaintiff alleges that ten of Defendant’s affiliates sent a total of 642 sexually explicit, unconsented to, emails in violation of the Act and were paid a total of $ 209,120 in commissions within a one year period. During that same time period, Defendant lodged upwards of 400 complaints of computer users who received unwanted sexually explicit emails, with approximately 300 of those complaints coming from a single Defendant’s affiliate. Plaintiff contends that Defendant did not screen affiliates, supplied affiliates with pornographic promotional materials, did not monitor or oversee its affiliates’ promotional activities, and did not readily terminate affiliates after complaints of uninvited sexually explicit spam.
They were paid $209,120 for advertising porn? My goodness.

On Lexis: United States v. Cyberheat, Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15448 (D. Ariz. Mar. 2, 2007)

On Westlaw: 2007 WL 686678

You Might Also Like

No Comments

Leave a Reply