Dryer said Snuffer and Riddle sent out form letters to his companies, offering to settle the cases at $6,500 a pop. He said some paid the settlement rather than bothering with the expense of having to travel to Utah to fight the suits.

Dryer said many of the people filing lawsuits turned out to be staff members and other attorneys from Snuffer and Riddle's own law firm.

Snuffer said he does not hide the fact that some of his plaintiffs are fellow office workers. He also believes he is doing something worthwhile in fighting spam.

"We were looking at a volume of 50,000 spams," Snuffer said.

One client, he said, was a county employee whose job was seriously affected by unwanted e-mails.

"Her job essentially turned into an e-mail occupation. A third of her day was spent deleting spam, and it was infuriating her," Snuffer said.

Simply put, his clients were tired of it and trying to hit back, Snuffer said.

The Wall Street Journal spotlighted Snuffer and Riddle's lawsuits in June 2003 as an example of what can go wrong when a state's anti-spam legislation is not properly written. In addition to small companies, the two attorneys also have hit such corporate giants as Verizon Communications, eBay Inc. and Columbia House for allegedly sending spam.

Since then, the U.S. Congress has passed a federal anti-spam law, which trumps state laws. The Utah Legislature also has repealed its law. Yet a legacy of anti-spam suits continue to wind their way through the Utah court system. Snuffer estimates there are still about 200 such suits pending.

One such suit, against Redmond Venture Inc., went before the Utah Court of Appeals last month.

Redmond attorney Stephanie Pugsley said her company has strict policies about sending unsolicited e-mails to people. Snuffer's firm argued Redmond had contracted with third-party people who made money by sending out e-mails, some of them unsolicited. Pugsley countered that if third-party people violated Redmond's policy, they shouldn't be held responsible.

"We don't know who sends these e-mails and whoever did should be liable," Pugsley said.

Snuffer contends Redmond still should be held liable. The appellate court is expected to issue a ruling in the next few months.

Pugsley told the justices she finds Snuffer and Riddle's suit ironic because Redmond Venture is a developer and seller of anti-spam software.

---

E-mail: gfattah@desnews.com