Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Consumer Law Blogs -> CL&P Blog
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Consumer Law
: CL&P BlogISP's Standing Up for Their Customers -- or Not
By Paul Levy
by Paul Alan Levy
Last week I posted about the problem of an Internet Provider, Dynadot, that rolled over when the target of postings on the web site of one of its clients filed suit (in the now-notorious Wikileaks case). Several readers have asked, including one public comment, so where do we go to find the right ISP?
Last year, Declan McCullagh published a survey of ISP answers to questions that he posed to them about the circumstances in which they would consider suspending domain names in the absence of a court order. This is not precisely responsive to the question here given that Dynadot suspended only after a court order -- a court order to which it consented! Moreover, policies are one thing but actual practices may be something else. Still the survey may provide some useful information.
On a related issue, I noted in last week's post that Go Daddy and Domains by Proxy are a mixed bag with respect to protecting their customers' anonymity. Over the course of defending against subpoenas over the years, I have noticed that Yahoo! and Google have consistently insisted on the opportunity to give notice to their customers and to allow customers some amount of time to seek to quash the subpoena, although neither ISP is generally willing to oppose subpoenas on the merits (they leave it to the customer to find counsel and move to quash if they desire to do so). Cable providers may be a good choice for this purpose because they are under a statutory duty to provide notice before disclosing. There are occasional ISP's that have felt so strongly about protecting their users that they have gone out and found counsel to protect their users -- that is how we came to represent Network 54 in opposing a subpoena to identify posters on one of its message boards, and to represent infomercialscams.com in opposing a subpoena from Video Professor. But these cases may be sui generis.
Of course, "past performance is no guarantee of future results." :-)
Full post as published by CL&P Blog on March 03, 2008 (boomark / email).
Citibank
Will Repay $14 Million to Credit Card Customers
T-Mobile USA
alleging the company charged customers for services without their consent.
Cisco Travel Plazas
allegedly shorting customers on fuel.
T-Mobile USA Inc.
allegedly charged customers for unsolicited text messages.
Sears, Roebuck & Co.
alleging the company’s web site used spyware to track customers Internet use.
DirecTV and Best Buy
allegedly failed to inform customers that they must return their receivers upon cancellation.

ISP's shouldn't be obligated to police the net
Wal-Mart Drops DRM Servers, Customers Lose Music
UK ISP explains its traffic shaping/net neutrality approach
More on ISP Agreement Regarding Child Pornography Sites








