2 ms·

I don't know, to me this sounds like a perfect scenario to let them know he's getting a good lawyer and justifiably suing them for damages if they intend to go

I don't know, to me this sounds like a perfect scenario to let them know he's getting a good lawyer and justifiably suing them for damages if they intend to go through with it and delete his account. Sadly, in most cases abusers of power only stop when there's a steep price tag on it.

SwellJoe 9y ago
I'm certain the terms of service he agreed to allow the service provider to discontinue service with some amount of notice (30 days seems likely since that's what they gave him here). I've never signed up for any service that I can recall that didn't explicitly allow either party to discontinue it. While I'm pretty on board with the notion of some kind of internet access as a modern human right, I can't really see an argument for a right to a specific email address with a specific email provider. It's shitty that they've only given him 30 days. And, it's shitty that they didn't do something about it much, much sooner (noreply has been around for a long time as a common address for customer service emails, though maybe not 20 years), before his life became so entangled in this specific email address. But, I don't think the law is on his side. I doubt he'd find a lawyer to take the case without paying a lot for the service. And, I really doubt he'd win such a lawsuit.
gcb0 9y ago
he should also sue then for impersonating and harassing. he trusted then to handle his private personal email. instead they sent out millions of messages faking that it was from his account, when they could have used, literally, any other combination of words to tell the recipients that they should not reply to the message. change no to dont, and it is even more functional to the intended purpose. it's so trivial to use another bogus email on the from field that his lawyer should have no problem claiming it might have been a malicious employer harassing him. because, really, that's the only explanation that is actually plausible.

SwellJoe 9y ago

I'm certain the terms of service he agreed to allow the service provider to discontinue service with some amount of notice (30 days seems likely since that's what they gave him here). I've never signed up for any service that I can recall that didn't explicitly allow either party to discontinue it. While I'm pretty on board with the notion of some kind of internet access as a modern human right, I can't really see an argument for a right to a specific email address with a specific email provider. It's shitty that they've only given him 30 days. And, it's shitty that they didn't do something about it much, much sooner (noreply has been around for a long time as a common address for customer service emails, though maybe not 20 years), before his life became so entangled in this specific email address. But, I don't think the law is on his side. I doubt he'd find a lawyer to take the case without paying a lot for the service. And, I really doubt he'd win such a lawsuit.

gcb0 9y ago

he should also sue then for impersonating and harassing. he trusted then to handle his private personal email. instead they sent out millions of messages faking that it was from his account, when they could have used, literally, any other combination of words to tell the recipients that they should not reply to the message. change no to dont, and it is even more functional to the intended purpose. it's so trivial to use another bogus email on the from field that his lawyer should have no problem claiming it might have been a malicious employer harassing him. because, really, that's the only explanation that is actually plausible.