One of Australia's most notorious internet marketeers is to face the federal court next month on allegations that he sent millions of unsolicited bulk emails.
The Australian Communications Authority (ACA) alleges Wayne Mansfield and his company, Clarity 1, sent at least 56 million commercial emails in the 12 months after the Spam Act was enacted in April 2004.
Most of these were unsolicited spam, claims the ACA.
The regulator also claims the Perth-based company 'harvested' email addresses for spamming purposes, and used a network of servers around the world to send the emails.
The ACA has appealed for an interim injunction against Clarity 1 before the court hearing in Perth on 20 July.
An ACA spokesperson told ZDNet Australia Mansfield received several warnings before it raided his company premises in April.
This is not the first time Mansfield has been accused of spamming. In 2002, he unsuccessfully tried to sue anti-spam activist Joey McNicol after the latter published the IP addresses of T3 Direct, a company that Mansfield owned.
Mansfield claimed that McNicol's actions resulted in a blacklist of his online marketing operations.
The Spam Act carries penalties of up to AU$220,000 (£94,000) per day for first-time corporate offenders and up to AU$1.1m (£0.47m) per day for repeat offenders.
Talkback
NUISANCE AT ITS BEST
The present system of spam mails and unsolicited mails is a gold mine for the advertisers and an illegal nuisance and privacy violation for the end user. The end user is compulsorily required to bear these nuisances and the only recourse he has is to take recourse of either the technological measures or the law or both. The law must be punitive in this regard and exemplary damages should be awarded as a matter of course for these nuisances and illegal privacy violations. The privacy of the user is violated by installing various spy wares and cookies that keep a record of the surfing habits of the users. These surfing habits are then sold to the advertisers and internet marketeers who then use it for spamming purposes. The spam laws of various countries must be amended suitably to accommodate these nuisances and privacy violations in the most desirable manner.