Manga - 1:47 pm on Sep 13, 2006 (gmt 0)

An anti-spam law was introduced in 2003 in the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations, but its powers are very limited. "The regulations generally don't stop spam being sent to work email addresses," said Robertson. "And anyone wanting to sue a spammer has to be sure that the spam originates in the UK. They also have to show damage and claim compensation for that damage – rather than claiming for the cost of dealing with all spam received in their inbox."

Why do people think they are entitled to anything more than compensation for actual damages when it comes to spam? It is reasonable that you would have to prove that you suffered damages, what those damages were, and then only be entitled to compensation for those damages as well as legal fees. Why would you be entitled to anything more than that?