of course they are shaving you and everyone else
they got legal bills to pay - and anyone having to fight facebook needs all the money they can get to fund the defence
they are obviously guilty of encouraging affiliates to spam facebook - because they track everyones traffic sources like nazis
so they obviously are going to be paying something plus legal bills
probably better to use another network until the dust settles.
They might have some legal bills to pay, sure...but FB is not going after a monetary settlement in their case against MB according to the court documents that have already been filed.
I could be wrong, but FB is requesting a jury trial and they are seeking to be protected under the CAN-SPAM Act. I personally do not think this will fly because they are not an ISP. This is something they are going to try to win over in their favor, but they are a website. They do not provide any type of Internet service. Think about it...what does ISP stand for? Internet Service Provider. Is FB an ISP? No.
HOWEVER, FB
is coming out with its own E-mail platform but I still do not see how that would affect the lawsuit against MB because their E-mail platform does not even exist yet so it definitely did not exist before this lawsuit was filed.
I personally think FB is going to lose the case while giving MB a BUNCH of exposure in the meantime. However, we will not know for most likely over a year because this is going to be a trial by jury and it is definitely not going to be settled overnight.
If you are/were sending BH traffic to MB and you do not live in a country that is beyond FB's reach, I agree...move on to another network. There are plenty of them out there. Even ones that payout more than MB and have
much better landing pages for certain offers.
Lastly, you can decide for yourself what you think the outcome of this case will be...
Code:
http://www.industrypace.com/frontpage/2010/10/26/facebook-sues-maxbounty-claims-all-messages-on-facebook-regulated-by-can-spam.html
Code:
http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/5:2010cv04712/233063/1/