Comments on: VeriSign Can Be Sued for Losing Your Domain Name

VeriSign Can Be Sued for Losing Your Domain Name

mikewas — Sun, 27 Jul 2003 14:33:13 -0800

VeriSign Can Be Sued for Losing Your Domain Name A Federal appeals court (Ninth Circuit) has ruled that the owner of the sex.com domain, who lost the domain when VeriSgin transferred it on the basis of a forged letter, can sue VeriSign for damages resulting from VeriSign's mistake. The sex.com case is worth millions, but anyone who has lost a domain name due to VeriSign's incompetence may now be able to draw their pound of flesh straight from those entrusted with making sure the registry process works.

By: mikewas

mikewas — Sun, 27 Jul 2003 14:33:57 -0800

The full opionion (in PDF) is available online.

By: mathowie

mathowie — Sun, 27 Jul 2003 14:59:22 -0800

Actually, VeriSign is only liable for domains lost before NetSol changed the language in 2000 or so to say that you are basically "leasing" a domain from them and don't own it. The Sex.com debacle predates that change in agreement, but I'm glad to see them held accountable finally.

By: mikewas

mikewas — Sun, 27 Jul 2003 15:25:18 -0800

I don't think that's been resolved, Matt. Clearly any cases which pre-date that agreement could move forward immediately; whether VeriSign's current contracts protect them from conversion claims hasn't been fully tested in light of this ruling. In any event, VeriSign's current "Service Agreement" doesn't specifically say that anymore. And their web site is loaded with terms like "Purchase" the domain name and so on.

By: anathema

anathema — Sun, 27 Jul 2003 15:26:33 -0800

Actually, they haven't been held accountable for anything yet. The case has been remanded to determine if NSI has liability for giving away an intangible property to a third-party. Operative words being "can" and "may."

By: quonsar

quonsar — Sun, 27 Jul 2003 22:37:08 -0800

well, i guarantee they can't be sued for losing mine.

By: weston

weston — Mon, 28 Jul 2003 09:36:04 -0800

What about Leslie Harpold and Hoopla.com? That happened after 2000 (2002 sometime?) IIRC... anyone know anything about that case?

By: crunchland

crunchland — Mon, 28 Jul 2003 10:03:59 -0800

to be perfectly blunt, anyone who is still paying $35 a year for a domain name through verisign, when there are hundreds of cheaper, more reliable alternatives, deserves to be bumfucked.