5 ms·

What specifically is there to fear from an email like this? For one the sender opens by admitting they are not protected by the CCPA, and a quick reading about

What specifically is there to fear from an email like this? For one the sender opens by admitting they are not protected by the CCPA, and a quick reading about this law shows it does not apply to an individual's personal blog. If a Russian were able to file suit in California, wouldn't the defendant have a chance early on to ask a judge to dismiss it? I'm trying to sound naive because I want some gory details.

walrus01 5y ago
> If a Russian were able to file suit in California, wouldn't the defendant have a chance early on to ask a judge to dismiss it? a particularly foolish or over-confident defendent might represent themselves, but otherwise, I would not budget less than $2000-3000 to hire a lawyer to draft and file a response to statement of claim and show up in court to attempt to get it dismissed before it gets started.
- Talanes 5y ago
  > a particularly foolish or over-confident defendent might represent themselves, but otherwise, I would not budget less than $2000-3000 to hire a lawyer Foolish, overconfident, or just "never have had $3000 in one place and time in my entire life."
- mattbee 5y ago
  From a British perspective this sound like madness. We have a tradition of referring baseless legal threats to the precedent of Arkell v Pressdram.
  - ealexhudson 5y ago
    A non-baseless threat so referred would land you in deep trouble, however. I think the core issue here is not being able to distinguish the two cases easily.
    - mattbee 5y ago
      Absolutely, and I'm sure this is very industrially & culturally-specific experience. I don't blame OP for not being able to distinguish. (though I wouldn't have even read the whole email before hitting delete) Personally I've told some expensive solicitors to get lost successfully, and for some I've engaged my own & spent tens of thousands. I suppose I tended to be aware of legal risks that I was running in my old business. But lawyers are trying to get a result for their client as fast as possible. So if they've sent you something full of hand-waving jargon, they're either not very good at communicating (& not the kind of lawyer used to taking things further) or they're trying to intimidate because they've not got anything substantial to say. Also (in my xp) it's rare that a lawyer won't clarify something they've written unless they're being paid to intimidate, and (in the UK at least) a judge will have short shrift with a plaintiff if pre-trial communications were insubstantial and intimidatory. You can't just be summoned to court with no idea what you did wrong.
  - luckylion 5y ago
    From what I understand, that case wasn't necessarily baseless, but they drew media attention to it by publishing the letters. Arkell withdrew his claims following _that_. For most people, if you pull them into the spot light, you will quickly shut them up. That does not make their legal threats baseless.
  - kstrauser 5y ago
    I did exactly that in my open reply to the same letter! https://blog.freeradical.zone/post/ccpa-scam-2021-12/ https://blog.freeradical.zone/post/ccpa-scam-2021-12/
watwut 5y ago
As I understand it, it is pretty easy to make small formal mistake that will make you loose without ever being heard.

walrus01 5y ago

> If a Russian were able to file suit in California, wouldn't the defendant have a chance early on to ask a judge to dismiss it? a particularly foolish or over-confident defendent might represent themselves, but otherwise, I would not budget less than $2000-3000 to hire a lawyer to draft and file a response to statement of claim and show up in court to attempt to get it dismissed before it gets started.

Talanes 5y ago
> a particularly foolish or over-confident defendent might represent themselves, but otherwise, I would not budget less than $2000-3000 to hire a lawyer Foolish, overconfident, or just "never have had $3000 in one place and time in my entire life."
mattbee 5y ago
From a British perspective this sound like madness. We have a tradition of referring baseless legal threats to the precedent of Arkell v Pressdram.
- ealexhudson 5y ago
  A non-baseless threat so referred would land you in deep trouble, however. I think the core issue here is not being able to distinguish the two cases easily.
  - mattbee 5y ago
    Absolutely, and I'm sure this is very industrially & culturally-specific experience. I don't blame OP for not being able to distinguish. (though I wouldn't have even read the whole email before hitting delete) Personally I've told some expensive solicitors to get lost successfully, and for some I've engaged my own & spent tens of thousands. I suppose I tended to be aware of legal risks that I was running in my old business. But lawyers are trying to get a result for their client as fast as possible. So if they've sent you something full of hand-waving jargon, they're either not very good at communicating (& not the kind of lawyer used to taking things further) or they're trying to intimidate because they've not got anything substantial to say. Also (in my xp) it's rare that a lawyer won't clarify something they've written unless they're being paid to intimidate, and (in the UK at least) a judge will have short shrift with a plaintiff if pre-trial communications were insubstantial and intimidatory. You can't just be summoned to court with no idea what you did wrong.
- luckylion 5y ago
  From what I understand, that case wasn't necessarily baseless, but they drew media attention to it by publishing the letters. Arkell withdrew his claims following _that_. For most people, if you pull them into the spot light, you will quickly shut them up. That does not make their legal threats baseless.
- kstrauser 5y ago
  I did exactly that in my open reply to the same letter! https://blog.freeradical.zone/post/ccpa-scam-2021-12/ https://blog.freeradical.zone/post/ccpa-scam-2021-12/

watwut 5y ago

As I understand it, it is pretty easy to make small formal mistake that will make you loose without ever being heard.